Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

copy protection from hell

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 6:13:47 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

I picked up two budget games over the last week. I upgraded to Windows
64-bit edition recently. It turns out the games won't run at all, that they
have issues with 64-bit, because the copy protection, Starforce, loads
device drivers that are 32-bit only.

The games in question are Emergency Fire and Rescue and Deserts Rats vs.
Afrika Corps. I cannot find a crack for the first game, so I cannot play it
at all. The second game- I haven't looked for a crack yet. I shouldn't
have to find a crack to play a game though, right?

Apparrently Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory also has Starforce, as do many
Ubisoft games. Frankly, it's stupid, stupid, stupid.

More about : copy protection hell

Anonymous
July 15, 2005 9:00:19 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:C0TBe.42052$ag7.26199@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> I picked up two budget games over the last week. I upgraded to Windows
> 64-bit edition recently. It turns out the games won't run at all, that
> they have issues with 64-bit, because the copy protection, Starforce,
> loads device drivers that are 32-bit only.
>
> The games in question are Emergency Fire and Rescue and Deserts Rats vs.
> Afrika Corps. I cannot find a crack for the first game, so I cannot play
> it at all. The second game- I haven't looked for a crack yet. I
> shouldn't have to find a crack to play a game though, right?
>
> Apparrently Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory also has Starforce, as do many
> Ubisoft games. Frankly, it's stupid, stupid, stupid.


Yikes! Is it possible to run a dual boot between a 32-bit version of XP
with the 64-bit version? I heard it was. That might be your best option.
Thanks for the heads up about your experience though. While I'm hanging on
to my current gaming computer until next year sometime, I hope things are
ironed out (at least for the most part) by then. Anyway, I'm sorry to hear
about this.
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 10:56:39 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Hi,

Eventually the gaming industry will catch up to XP64, like it caught up
with XP (and/or XP's brokeness was fixed). We may also see better XP32
compatibility in XP64 eventually.

However you can count on some companies to never fix their older titles,
simply because they're not making money on them anymore. If it's in the
bargain bin or worse, and there's no revenue stream from Internet play,
you can almost count on it staying broken.

Curiously internet delivered software like Valve's Steam have the best
chance, as they like to milk revenue from residual sales of their back
catalog.

Ken.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail: kmarsh at charm dot net | Fire Rumsfeld, secure Iraq's borders.
WWW: http://www.charm.net/~kmarsh | Our border with Mexico too.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related resources
July 16, 2005 4:15:26 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 17:00:19 -0600, "NightSky 421"
<nightsky421@yahoo.ca> wrote:

>Yikes! Is it possible to run a dual boot between a 32-bit version of XP
>with the 64-bit version? I heard it was.
yes.
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 6:53:30 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Thusly "Magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> Spake Unto All:

> I picked up two budget games over the last week. I upgraded to Windows
>64-bit edition recently. It turns out the games won't run at all, that they
>have issues with 64-bit, because the copy protection, Starforce, loads
>device drivers that are 32-bit only.

Haha, the starforce filth strikes out yet again.
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 12:29:26 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:C0TBe.42052$ag7.26199@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> I picked up two budget games over the last week. I upgraded to Windows
> 64-bit edition recently. It turns out the games won't run at all, that
> they have issues with 64-bit, because the copy protection, Starforce,
> loads device drivers that are 32-bit only.
>
> The games in question are Emergency Fire and Rescue and Deserts Rats vs.
> Afrika Corps. I cannot find a crack for the first game, so I cannot play
> it at all. The second game- I haven't looked for a crack yet. I
> shouldn't have to find a crack to play a game though, right?
>
> Apparrently Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory also has Starforce, as do many
> Ubisoft games. Frankly, it's stupid, stupid, stupid.

Starforce loads DRIVERS? Wow, that's worse than Steam.

I had heard about Chaos Theory having some draconian copy protection but
didn't catch the details. Guess I'll need to add Starforce-infected games to
my "never buy" list.
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 1:41:57 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Kroagnon" <kroagnon@kroagnon.com> wrote in message
news:11di2tnjgq3bo18@news.supernews.com...
>
> Starforce loads DRIVERS? Wow, that's worse than Steam.
>
> I had heard about Chaos Theory having some draconian copy protection but
> didn't catch the details. Guess I'll need to add Starforce-infected games
> to my "never buy" list.


You can download an "update" the StarForce drivers from the StarForce
website, but I have to admit that I've been avoiding games that use this
copy protection.
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 3:05:23 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

NightSky 421 wrote:
> "Magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:C0TBe.42052$ag7.26199@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
>> I picked up two budget games over the last week. I upgraded to Windows
>>64-bit edition recently. It turns out the games won't run at all, that
>>they have issues with 64-bit, because the copy protection, Starforce,
>>loads device drivers that are 32-bit only.
>>
>> The games in question are Emergency Fire and Rescue and Deserts Rats vs.
>>Afrika Corps. I cannot find a crack for the first game, so I cannot play
>>it at all. The second game- I haven't looked for a crack yet. I
>>shouldn't have to find a crack to play a game though, right?
>>
>> Apparrently Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory also has Starforce, as do many
>>Ubisoft games. Frankly, it's stupid, stupid, stupid.
>
>
>
> Yikes! Is it possible to run a dual boot between a 32-bit version of XP
> with the 64-bit version? I heard it was. That might be your best option.
> Thanks for the heads up about your experience though. While I'm hanging on
> to my current gaming computer until next year sometime, I hope things are
> ironed out (at least for the most part) by then. Anyway, I'm sorry to hear
> about this.

Screw that. It may be possibly to run both 32/64-bit versions on the
same system, but it's a waste of effort. I've got an AMD64 chip but am
only running Windows XP 32-bit due to the compatability issues present
with some software in the 64-bit version, as well as the fact XP 64-bit
doesn't really have any major advantages yet due to the lack of proper
64-bit software. Might as well stick to a system that works until 64-bit
software becomes more prevalent.
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 3:05:24 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"GFree" <gfree678@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:42d86456_1@news.iprimus.com.au...
>
> Screw that. It may be possibly to run both 32/64-bit versions on the same
> system, but it's a waste of effort. I've got an AMD64 chip but am only
> running Windows XP 32-bit due to the compatability issues present with
> some software in the 64-bit version, as well as the fact XP 64-bit doesn't
> really have any major advantages yet due to the lack of proper 64-bit
> software. Might as well stick to a system that works until 64-bit software
> becomes more prevalent.


True, but Magnulus has obviously already bought the 64-bit version of
Windows XP and my suggestion may have at least tried to make something good
out of a less than ideal situation. I know what you mean about 64-bit
computing and operating systems though, look how long 16-bit hung around
even though the last true 16-bit processor was the 386SX.
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 3:05:25 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"NightSky 421" <nightsky421@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:11dgshqe4s6g21@corp.supernews.com...
> True, but Magnulus has obviously already bought the 64-bit version of
> Windows XP and my suggestion may have at least tried to make something
> good out of a less than ideal situation. I know what you mean about
> 64-bit computing and operating systems though, look how long 16-bit hung
> around even though the last true 16-bit processor was the 386SX.

My videocard and motherboard went tits up and died, so I had to get a new
one. Somehow the AGP port burnt out and took the graphics card with it. I
got an Athlon 64 3000, an Asus SLI motherboard, a gigabyte of RAM, and a
GeForce 6600 GT PCI-e 128MB- oh, and an Antec 430 watt True Power 2. I had
a GeForce 6800 AGP, so it's a bit of a letdown (this card struggles in many
games with anything more than 2xantialiasing at 1280x1024). But my
motherboard can enable SLI, I'm just not sure yet I want to sacrifice one
PCI slot, I might want it in the future (it has PCI-e network slots). And
then I get this rude surprise with this game.

I just hope somebody comes up with a good website of the list of games
that have Starforce, so I can avoid them, unless I can find a crack. I
haven't been buying that many PC games lately, anyways.

Another bad surprise about Windows 64- the number of basic apps that don't
run. Games are generally fine, though, but there aren't really any
anti-virus programs out there that will run, though I've heard not many
viruses can infect 64-bit computers.
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 3:05:26 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Nostromo" <nostromo@spamfree.net.au> wrote in message
news:s17hd11g172gtd21jfqg2b2uiqel3ur50t@4ax.com...
> You should've got a real decent card like a X800Pro/XT ;-p

I'm not going to buy an ATI card again, too many little features I would
miss.

> ROFLMAO - where the hell did you read THAT!? The microslut website ffs?
> Don't let the '64' fool you - Unix it ain't!

No, it was a news article on a 64-bit windows virus. Maybe it was
bullshit.
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 3:05:26 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:o 1%Be.84645$Tt.11832@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
> My videocard and motherboard went tits up and died, so I had to get a
> new one. Somehow the AGP port burnt out and took the graphics card with
> it. I got an Athlon 64 3000, an Asus SLI motherboard, a gigabyte of RAM,
> and a GeForce 6600 GT PCI-e 128MB- oh, and an Antec 430 watt True Power 2.
> I had a GeForce 6800 AGP, so it's a bit of a letdown (this card struggles
> in many games with anything more than 2xantialiasing at 1280x1024). But
> my motherboard can enable SLI, I'm just not sure yet I want to sacrifice
> one PCI slot, I might want it in the future (it has PCI-e network slots).
> And then I get this rude surprise with this game.
>


Good God, talk about if it wasn't for bad luck, you'd have no luck at all.
Sorry to hear of the woes. Well, at least you have a more forward-looking
foundation now. You could even consider putting your 64-bit Windows XP on
the shelf for a while and maybe re-visit it in six months or so. Hopefully
a lot of the growing pains will be a thing of the past by then.


> I just hope somebody comes up with a good website of the list of games
> that have Starforce, so I can avoid them, unless I can find a crack. I
> haven't been buying that many PC games lately, anyways.
>


I too would like to see a dedicated website that lists all games using copy
protection like StarForce.


> Another bad surprise about Windows 64- the number of basic apps that
> don't run. Games are generally fine, though, but there aren't really any
> anti-virus programs out there that will run, though I've heard not many
> viruses can infect 64-bit computers.


I would be careful to make that assumption.
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 4:45:13 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 14:13:47 -0400, "Magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> I picked up two budget games over the last week. I upgraded to Windows
>64-bit edition recently. It turns out the games won't run at all, that they
>have issues with 64-bit, because the copy protection, Starforce, loads
>device drivers that are 32-bit only.
>
> The games in question are Emergency Fire and Rescue and Deserts Rats vs.
>Afrika Corps. I cannot find a crack for the first game, so I cannot play it
>at all. The second game- I haven't looked for a crack yet. I shouldn't
>have to find a crack to play a game though, right?
>
> Apparrently Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory also has Starforce, as do many
>Ubisoft games. Frankly, it's stupid, stupid, stupid.

I would steer well clear of Windows 64bit unless you have specific reasons for
doing so and gaming isn't one of them at the moment.
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 7:52:28 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Thusly "Kroagnon" <kroagnon@kroagnon.com> Spake Unto All:

>Starforce loads DRIVERS? Wow, that's worse than Steam.

Starforce *is* drivers, installed without telling you. And which
prohibits install and/or crashes programs it doesn't like, like Nero
and Daemon Tools, without telling you. And isn't uninstalled when you
uninstall the game, but continues running. Naturally without telling
you.

It's malware, and any game "protected" by it a trojan horse. Simple as
that. Steam is a paragon of virtue compared to the starforce filth.
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 10:18:17 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"NightSky 421" <nightsky421@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:11dialrdoka0644@corp.supernews.com...
> You can download an "update" the StarForce drivers from the StarForce
> website, but I have to admit that I've been avoiding games that use this
> copy protection.

Can you? Star Force says it's not their responsability to ensure than
games run on Windows 64, thus I found nothing about downloading new drivers.
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 10:18:18 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:GHfCe.119978$du.81676@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>
> Can you? Star Force says it's not their responsability to ensure than
> games run on Windows 64, thus I found nothing about downloading new
> drivers.


I did see something on their site where you can download an updated version
of StarForce. I had the impression that you had to download it as a file
and install it yourself. But I don't recall anything about 64-bit
compatibility. Sorry, I did not intend to give false hope, but with this
new version of Windows out, it seems outrageous to me that they (the folks
at StarForce) haven't supported it yet.
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 5:07:35 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"NightSky 421" <nightsky421@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:11diaga6reci778@corp.supernews.com...
> Good God, talk about if it wasn't for bad luck, you'd have no luck at all.
> Sorry to hear of the woes. Well, at least you have a more forward-looking
> foundation now. You could even consider putting your 64-bit Windows XP on
> the shelf for a while and maybe re-visit it in six months or so.
> Hopefully a lot of the growing pains will be a thing of the past by then.

I plan to replay older games in the next few months. New PC games
really don't grab me to go out and buy them anymore.. And games in general
run just fine in Windows 64, it's just a few of them won't run because of
the copy protection. About the only new PC game I've actually liked was GTA
San Andreas. My graphics card came with XIII and Prince of Persia, I might
try those out.
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 7:26:48 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 15:52:28 +0200, Mean_Chlorine
<mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>Thusly "Kroagnon" <kroagnon@kroagnon.com> Spake Unto All:
>
>>Starforce loads DRIVERS? Wow, that's worse than Steam.
>
>Starforce *is* drivers, installed without telling you. And which
>prohibits install and/or crashes programs it doesn't like, like Nero
>and Daemon Tools, without telling you. And isn't uninstalled when you
>uninstall the game, but continues running. Naturally without telling
>you.

>It's malware, and any game "protected" by it a trojan horse. Simple as
>that. Steam is a paragon of virtue compared to the starforce filth.

I'm not sure I can agree with that. While I have no love of Starforce,
at least I with a Starforce "protected" game, can just slap in a CD
and play. Steam demands authorization first. Starforce is also quite
happy to let you play at any ol' patch level, unlike Steam which you
have to jump through hoops if you don't want to be auto-updated. With
a Starforce "protected" game, once you get tired of it you can simply
uninstall it and sell the game/manual/CD-key to somebody else, quite
unlike Steam which is tied to a particular e-mail account which you
may be loathe to surrender.

The primary disadvantages of Starforce are:

-it uses a kernel-level driver which is usually installed without
adequately notifying the user. It is loaded at Windows start-up and
intercepts calls to read the optical drive. While annoying, it is not
by itself harmful (caveat: see below about how it interferes with Nero
et al.)

-Most games don't uninstall it automatically when they uninstall
themselves (this is more the fault of the publisher, as they are the
ones who install it in the first place and are responsible for
removing it).

- most egregiously, it conflicts with numerous CD/DVD burning
programs, often requiring people to disable or uninstall useful
applications just to get a game to run

I think Starforce (and other similar over-the-top copy-protection
systems, such as the newest Securom) are the wrong direction for
software publishers, but I much prefer it to the direction Steam (and
other in-development over-the-web-authorization programs) is taking
us.
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 9:58:37 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

> The primary disadvantages of Starforce are:
>
> -it uses a kernel-level driver which is usually installed without
> adequately notifying the user.

This is actually a MONSTER problem. Windows XP, unlike Windows 2000 and
Linux, runs drivers at ring zero. That means that a buggy driver will
destabilize the entire system, causing system-wide crashes. Just to
highlight what this means, a user application CAN NOT crash the windows
xp system, it can only crash itself. By installing Starforce you're
taking it on trust that their filth is bug free and wont crash your
system.

This, alone, puts it in a much lower circle of hell than steam can ever
aspire to.

> -Most games don't uninstall it automatically when they uninstall
> themselves (this is more the fault of the publisher, as they are the
> ones who install it in the first place and are responsible for
> removing it).

AFAIK the problem is/was that Starforce handed out allegedly buggy
uninstall routines. I say allegedly because I'm convinced it was really
a conscious design decision to leave the "protection" running; it
wasn't until third parties released starforce removal tools that
starforce themselves released a removal tool.

> - most egregiously, it conflicts with numerous CD/DVD burning
> programs, often requiring people to disable or uninstall useful
> applications just to get a game to run

Worse, it may simply crash programs it doesn't like. I had people tell
me that Nero was useless for backing up digital photos, because Nero
was so buggy and "crashed all the time". Again I think starforce claims
this is a bug, not a feature, of starforce - but again, that's no
better.
Imagine the outcry if it'd been Microsoft who'd - without informing the
user - installed a DMCA-enforcing driver which consistently caused
Firefox to crash!

Nero AG should do everyone, including legit gamers and game publishers,
a huge favor and sue Starforce into bankruptcy.

> I think Starforce (and other similar over-the-top copy-protection
> systems, such as the newest Securom) are the wrong direction for
> software publishers, but I much prefer it to the direction Steam (and
> other in-development over-the-web-authorization programs) is taking
> us.

I don't. I hate disk-based protection. It does nothing at all to stop
piracy, it *only* penalizes legitimate users. For disk based copy
protection in general it is time to realize that repeated failure (for
over 20 years now) does not guarantee eventual success, and in the
particular case of starforce disk based copy protection has progressed
well over the line to being malicious software.

Online account based protection on the other hand DOES work, as far as
online play is concerned anyway, with the downsides are that 1) you
need an internet connection, and 2) it may be difficult or even
impossible to sell the game once you tire of it. Compared to starforce
that seems like pretty tame downsides to me.

Fundamentally, I think disk based copy protection is flawed because it
protects the wrong thing. We're not interested in restricting access or
copying of the physical medium, we're interested in avoiding having
multiple copies of the content played simultaneously - and the logical
solution to that is accounts.
July 17, 2005 11:24:10 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 10:04:32 +0930, GFree <gfree678@gmail.com> wrote:

>I'll speak for him. A little feature called "Shader Model 3.0" perhaps?
>Something that the Source will need for high-quality HDR? Something that
>the GeForce 6 cards can do and your precious little ATi card can't? :) 

They seem to do quite well according to this:
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/far_cry_sm30/
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
July 17, 2005 2:05:07 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Thus spake Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk>, Sat, 16 Jul
2005 15:52:28 +0200, Anno Domini:

>Thusly "Kroagnon" <kroagnon@kroagnon.com> Spake Unto All:
>
>>Starforce loads DRIVERS? Wow, that's worse than Steam.
>
>Starforce *is* drivers, installed without telling you. And which
>prohibits install and/or crashes programs it doesn't like, like Nero
>and Daemon Tools, without telling you. And isn't uninstalled when you
>uninstall the game, but continues running. Naturally without telling
>you.
>
>It's malware, and any game "protected" by it a trojan horse. Simple as
>that. Steam is a paragon of virtue compared to the starforce filth.

Great. Any idea what list of games is infested with this filth? Is it a
particular shortlist of publishers? Gamecopyworld used to list the copy
protection against each game - I wonder if it's up to date...hmmm...off to
sniff around a bit.

--
A killfile is a friend for life.

Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 3:32:21 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Spalls Hurgenson" <yoinks@ebalu.com> wrote in message
news:68jjd1hb91hprjpfr4bsmqkfgvh1d9r1bj@4ax.com...

> I'm not sure I can agree with that. While I have no love of Starforce,
> at least I with a Starforce "protected" game, can just slap in a CD
> and play. Steam demands authorization first. Starforce is also quite
> happy to let you play at any ol' patch level, unlike Steam which you
> have to jump through hoops if you don't want to be auto-updated. With
> a Starforce "protected" game, once you get tired of it you can simply
> uninstall it and sell the game/manual/CD-key to somebody else, quite
> unlike Steam which is tied to a particular e-mail account which you
> may be loathe to surrender.
>
> The primary disadvantages of Starforce are:
>
> -it uses a kernel-level driver which is usually installed without
> adequately notifying the user. It is loaded at Windows start-up and
> intercepts calls to read the optical drive. While annoying, it is not
> by itself harmful (caveat: see below about how it interferes with Nero
> et al.)
>
> -Most games don't uninstall it automatically when they uninstall
> themselves (this is more the fault of the publisher, as they are the
> ones who install it in the first place and are responsible for
> removing it).
>
> - most egregiously, it conflicts with numerous CD/DVD burning
> programs, often requiring people to disable or uninstall useful
> applications just to get a game to run
>
> I think Starforce (and other similar over-the-top copy-protection
> systems, such as the newest Securom) are the wrong direction for
> software publishers, but I much prefer it to the direction Steam (and
> other in-development over-the-web-authorization programs) is taking
> us.

That's just crazy. Driver-based DRM? Disable another program on my drive to
run a game? Not gonna happen here. I use both Nero and Daemon Tools and I
won't unstall either to play any game.

No Starforce, no Steam, no DRM, no way. Don't expect to get my money if you
embed these DRM in your products.
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 3:21:20 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

x-no-archive: yes

Magnulus wrote:

<snip>

did you read the game's system requirements?
did it tell you it run on windows xp 64 bits?
why try being a hero and impress all your friends by jumping
into 64 bits when games are still not there?
so you expect publishers now create special versions only for
you cause you decided you want to run windows xp 64 bits to
use with pc games?
pc games are still not 64 bits
pc games are not ready for windows xp 64 bits
windows xp 64 bits is not a proper "os" for games
and win xp 64 is not even a mainstream "os"
microsoft only released it a couple of months ago they did
not even made a retail version but its only available in a
very restricted "oem" version
but even so you wanted everything prepared so you could run
any pc game in it right?
so your complain is worthless although its only motivation was
again trying to put down starforce
don't you know winxp 64 bits needs all new drivers specially
coded for it?
don't you know starforce is a driver based copy protection so
it does need a new 64 bit driver?
don't you know only a MINORITY of drivers have been written
for winxp 64 bits cause only a MINORITY uses winxp 64 bits?
obviously they will do a 64 bit driver for starforce but not
for you but rather when a significative number of gamers use
winxp 64 bits which will not happen any time soon

what you made was a another GRATUITOUS flame against starforce
when starforce existence is our FAULT!
yes ours! YOU and me and every single pc gamer fault
piracy is DEVASTATING pc games! DEVASTATING!
starforce is present in pc games cause WE pc gamers don't do
nothing about piracy and illegal copy of pc games when its our
job fighting against it
so like i say to everyone flaming starforce... mister do your
job! fight against piracy! don't lend, copy and give away your
own pc games! only then will you have the right to flame copy
protections
for now if there is anything to flame against its PIRACY!

--
post made in a steam-free computer
i said "NO" to valve and steam
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 3:25:55 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

x-no-archive: yes

Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

<snip>

this is simply fabulous stuff!
again i see in this group high quality posts against steam
and really the best ones, the best this group can offer
you are back Spalls! finally!
and welcome!

--
post made in a steam-free computer
i said "NO" to valve and steam
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 3:28:56 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

x-no-archive: yes

Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

> But on the other hand, Starforce is merely the latest
> iteration of copy-protection methods that run back ten or
> fifteen years. It doesn't work, but on the other hand it
> isn't (really) worse than any of the previous iterations of
> the technology. Steam, however, is a new paradigm that is
> far worse in its scope than the older technologies.

exactly Spalls!
again you are back!
this is the high quality i saw last year when i first had
the luck of reading your great posts about steam
and this shows you are miles ahead of them
starforce is a copy protection
steam IS NOT A COPY PROTECTION!
steam is a all new paradigm shift a all new way to sell play
patch pc games... steam is the first step toward software as
a service
this really shows their complete ignorance and also how far
away and advanced you are in a proper analyses about steam
that's why i always trusted you and learned from you
for me this is probably the most important issue about steam
steam is not copy protection, steam is a new system for pc
games, and i owe it to you knowing to see the difference
Thanks Spalls!

--
post made in a steam-free computer
i said "NO" to valve and steam
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 3:51:57 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Mean_Chlorine" <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:o q3id1he0j5cq6essc426o7ni6fetk2v26@4ax.com...
> Thusly "Kroagnon" <kroagnon@kroagnon.com> Spake Unto All:
>
>>Starforce loads DRIVERS? Wow, that's worse than Steam.
>
> Starforce *is* drivers, installed without telling you. And which
> prohibits install and/or crashes programs it doesn't like, like Nero
> and Daemon Tools, without telling you. And isn't uninstalled when you
> uninstall the game, but continues running. Naturally without telling
> you.
>
> It's malware, and any game "protected" by it a trojan horse. Simple as
> that. Steam is a paragon of virtue compared to the starforce filth.
>

How can a person tell if they have the Starforce driver running on their pc?
Would it be listed under applications running, if so, by what name?
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 6:10:04 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On 17 Jul 2005 05:58:37 -0700, mike_noren2002@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

>
>Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
>> The primary disadvantages of Starforce are:
>>
>> -it uses a kernel-level driver which is usually installed without
>> adequately notifying the user.
>
>This is actually a MONSTER problem. Windows XP, unlike Windows 2000 and
>Linux, runs drivers at ring zero. That means that a buggy driver will
>destabilize the entire system, causing system-wide crashes. Just to
>highlight what this means, a user application CAN NOT crash the windows
>xp system, it can only crash itself. By installing Starforce you're
>taking it on trust that their filth is bug free and wont crash your
>system.

True, it really isn't a good idea to have drivers run at ring zero;
really the only reason it is done (should be done) is for performance
reasons. A bad driver can screw up your system. Starforce puts it
there to insure that nothing else can "slip under" its so-called
protection (I believe some CD-copying programs also use ring-zero
drivers to get direct access to the optical drive hardware, hence many
of the conflicts). I don't think it's a smart move on their part,
especially since it -like all copy-protection methods- does not work.
Having said that, I have a good number of Starforce "protected" games
and not once has one caused Windows to hose itself because of a bad
Starforce driver.

>> -Most games don't uninstall it automatically when they uninstall
>> themselves (this is more the fault of the publisher, as they are the
>> ones who install it in the first place and are responsible for
>> removing it).

>AFAIK the problem is/was that Starforce handed out allegedly buggy
>uninstall routines. I say allegedly because I'm convinced it was really
>a conscious design decision to leave the "protection" running; it
>wasn't until third parties released starforce removal tools that
>starforce themselves released a removal tool.

I agree; there probably was a decision somewhere that it really wasn't
worth the bother of removing the software since it was initially
considered pretty harmless; there wasn't such widespread usage of
programs like Nero et al. Sure it might have taken up a few more
resources (CPU/RAM) but these were minimal and -as a bonus- the user
wouldn't have to reboot after uninstall to remove the damn things (or
reboot after re-installing the game). In other words -as far as they
considered- didn't hurt to keep it in, and it would be slightly more
annoying to the user to remove.

Again, it's not something I think was that smart a decision, but I
like a lean, clean and mean machine and work to keep it that way.
Unused software -be they ring-zero drivers or otherwise- get kicked
off the drive. But I don't think there was any evil conspiracy on the
part of Starforce or the game publishers, just sloppiness.

>> - most egregiously, it conflicts with numerous CD/DVD burning
>> programs, often requiring people to disable or uninstall useful
>> applications just to get a game to run
>
>Worse, it may simply crash programs it doesn't like. I had people tell
>me that Nero was useless for backing up digital photos, because Nero
>was so buggy and "crashed all the time". Again I think starforce claims
>this is a bug, not a feature, of starforce - but again, that's no
>better.

>Nero AG should do everyone, including legit gamers and game publishers,
>a huge favor and sue Starforce into bankruptcy.

Certainly a terrible flaw in the program, be it purposeful or
otherwise. And I certainly have no intent on defending their software;
I think it's poorly thought out system that was bound to lead to
problems sooner or later.

But on the other hand, Starforce is merely the latest iteration of
copy-protection methods that run back ten or fifteen years. It doesn't
work, but on the other hand it isn't (really) worse than any of the
previous iterations of the technology. Steam, however, is a new
paradigm that is far worse in its scope than the older technologies.
Steam has all the problems of disk-based copy-protection systems and
throws in a few new ones, without adding any significant benefits for
the user. This, ultimately, was the thrust of my argument; not that
Starforce is *good* (it isn't), just that Steam (and its
in-development kin) are far worse.

>Online account based protection on the other hand DOES work, as far as
>online play is concerned anyway, with the downsides are that 1) you
>need an internet connection, and 2) it may be difficult or even
>impossible to sell the game once you tire of it. Compared to starforce
>that seems like pretty tame downsides to me.

For most people, Starforce DOES work too. I'd wager Starforce has at
least as equal a "success rate" as Steam does (e.g., about the same
percentage of users have issues with Steam as they do with Starforce:
not very much). But then Steam adds various penalties on top of that:
it requires internet access (preferably broadband with straight port
80 access); it makes re-selling the game difficult (unless you jump
through hoops), it requires online-authorization to play, it forces
its version-control on the users, etc. And for all that, it STILL
ultimately doesn't work as "copy protection", since -surprise
surprise- pirated versions of Half Life 2 and Counterstrike Zero are
apparently available on the net.

h
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 9:19:05 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 23:51:57 GMT, "OldDog" <OldDog@citypound.dogs>
wrote:

>How can a person tell if they have the Starforce driver running on their pc?
>Would it be listed under applications running, if so, by what name?

Because it is a driver and not an application, it does not show up in
the taskmanager applications list. However, you can check to see if it
loaded with Device Manager.

Press the Windows-key (next to ALT button) and Pause key (upper right
corner, usually third key to the right of the F12 key) at the same
time to summon up the System Properties window.

Click Hardware tab, then click "Device Manager" button

On the menubar, click "VIEW" then select "Show Hidden Devices"

Scroll down and expand the "Non-Plug and Play Drivers" tree.

If Starforce is installed, you will see it listed as something similar
to "Starforce protection software".

Starforce "protected" games pop-up a dialog box when you start them up
where it says something along the lines of "checking CD" with a
progress bar. Also, they require you to reboot after you install the
game (this is so the driver loads).

To remove Starforce drivers, download the removal tool available at
http://www.onlinesecurity-on.com/protect.phtml?c=55

Note that any game that requires the drivers will automatically
reinstall them next time you start the game (prompting you to reboot),
so it's usually best to use the removal tool AFTER uninstalling any
"protected" games.
July 18, 2005 10:26:31 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 23:51:57 GMT, "OldDog" <OldDog@citypound.dogs>
wrote:

>How can a person tell if they have the Starforce driver running on their pc?
>Would it be listed under applications running, if so, by what name?

I found that out the other day when I was having some problems with
BF2 and I wanted to uninstall Starforce:

Control Panel>System>Hardware>Device Manager
View>Show Hidden Devices
Starforce show up in Non-Plug and Play Drivers.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
July 18, 2005 11:15:47 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Thus spake mike_noren2002@yahoo.co.uk, 17 Jul 2005 05:58:37 -0700, Anno
Domini:

<snip>

>Fundamentally, I think disk based copy protection is flawed because it
>protects the wrong thing. We're not interested in restricting access or
>copying of the physical medium, we're interested in avoiding having
>multiple copies of the content played simultaneously - and the logical
>solution to that is accounts.

Tx for all that Mike - great post mate!

--
A killfile is a friend for life.

Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 6:22:22 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Magnulus wrote:
> I picked up two budget games over the last week. I upgraded to Windows
> 64-bit edition recently. It turns out the games won't run at all, that they
> have issues with 64-bit, because the copy protection, Starforce, loads
> device drivers that are 32-bit only.
>

And written when there was only 32 bit only I daresay.

WOW.

SW that is not future compatible.
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 7:36:35 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 14:13:47 -0400, "Magnulus"
<magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> I picked up two budget games over the last week. I upgraded to Windows
>64-bit edition recently. It turns out the games won't run at all, that they
>have issues with 64-bit, because the copy protection, Starforce, loads
>device drivers that are 32-bit only.
>
> The games in question are Emergency Fire and Rescue and Deserts Rats vs.
>Afrika Corps. I cannot find a crack for the first game, so I cannot play it
>at all. The second game- I haven't looked for a crack yet. I shouldn't
>have to find a crack to play a game though, right?
>
> Apparrently Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory also has Starforce, as do many
>Ubisoft games. Frankly, it's stupid, stupid, stupid.
>
>

Just buy yourself a copy of Windows XP Pro 32-bit and dual-boot.

Done.

John Lewis
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 9:02:46 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Nostromo" <nostromo@spamfree.net.au> wrote in message
news:31ujd1tjne94ov9l2n7vmjc0tu14qotenn@4ax.com...
> 3d glasses may be important to you, but let's face it, they are 0.01% of
> the
> people who d/l movies/serials & want to watch them on their TV these days.
> That's a conservative estimate btw Mag ;-)

The same is true of TV-out. It's a feature most people aren't going to
think is that important.
I have used a GeForce 4 MX with an s-video out, and it seems to work just
fine. I suppose it depends on what you are trying to do.

OTOH, the fact that ATI cards don't scale resolutions for the DVI output
is a real deal breaker, especially in this day and age of everything moving
to digital flat panels. It doesn't matter how many pixels your card pushes,
if it does so with less than ideal image quality or visual distortions,
there's no point. With the NVidia card I have some flexibility at what
resolution I run my games, and this is very useful, especially for gaming.
With the ATI card I have to run at the native resolution of the monitor, or
settle for either a distorted image or a smaller image.
July 18, 2005 9:19:01 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"John Lewis" <john.dsl@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:42dbcbf4.4370196@news.verizon.net...
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 14:13:47 -0400, "Magnulus"
> <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> I picked up two budget games over the last week. I upgraded to Windows
>>64-bit edition recently. It turns out the games won't run at all, that
>>they
>>have issues with 64-bit, because the copy protection, Starforce, loads
>>device drivers that are 32-bit only.
>>
>> The games in question are Emergency Fire and Rescue and Deserts Rats vs.
>>Afrika Corps. I cannot find a crack for the first game, so I cannot play
>>it
>>at all. The second game- I haven't looked for a crack yet. I shouldn't
>>have to find a crack to play a game though, right?
>>
>> Apparrently Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory also has Starforce, as do many
>>Ubisoft games. Frankly, it's stupid, stupid, stupid.
>>
>>
>
> Just buy yourself a copy of Windows XP Pro 32-bit and dual-boot.
>
> Done.
>
> John Lewis

Hmm... the old 'if you dont have the kit for the game just go out and get
it' argument. Even SK asks did Magnalus read the requirements on the box.
You guys are starting to sound like the pro-Steamers of a couple of months
ago....

;-)
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 9:19:02 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

I wasn't trying to be a hero. And FWIW several games do support 64-bit
processors.

Everything else except Starforce runs fine in Windows 64 bit. Why the
heck shouldn't I upgrade? I can't believe some people will blow 400 dollars
on a videocard, then berate somebody for spending 150 dollars on an OS.
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 3:21:26 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Thusly "Magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> Spake Unto All:

>I can't believe some people will blow 400 dollars
>on a videocard, then berate somebody for spending 150 dollars on an OS.

You haven't spent much time around linux people, have you.

Anyway, your mistake was buying a starforce protected game. That was
bad, please don't do that again. In the meantime, go here:
http://m0002.gamecopyworld.com/games/pc_battlefield_2.s...
and get a crack.

Be sure to tell absolutely everyone how the buggy starforce malware
forced you to find and use a pirate site to get your legal copy to
run.
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 3:21:27 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

They don't make a crack for Emergency Fire Rescue, and I have not found a
crack that works for Desert Rats.
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 3:17:40 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Thusly "Magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> Spake Unto All:

> They don't make a crack for Emergency Fire Rescue, and I have not found a
>crack that works for Desert Rats.

I suspect those games are so bargain bin fillers that noone has
bothered to crack them.
July 20, 2005 3:44:56 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 03:13:32 -0400, "Magnulus"
<magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> Driver support on the whole is good for the 64 bit Windows. I've only had
>big problems with Starforce, obviously, and a small problem with my wireless
>driver (XP installs a broadcom driver, Linksys doesn't have a 64-bit driver
>yet... but hey, it runs). The Creative Audigy 2 driver control panels are
>a little rough compared to the Windows XP version but they work.

I know very little about 64-bit Windows as I am not in the position to
upgrade yet - do you need 64-bit drivers, or if they aren't available,
still use existing 32-bit ones?
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 3:44:57 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

You need 64 bit drivers for every single piece of hardware you have. Of
course Windows ships with many 64 bit drivers, so the average system should
be able to get up and running with them, but some things like printers,
scanners, etc., might not have support yet.
July 20, 2005 11:05:20 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 20:39:45 -0400, "Magnulus"
<magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> You need 64 bit drivers for every single piece of hardware you have. Of
>course Windows ships with many 64 bit drivers, so the average system should
>be able to get up and running with them, but some things like printers,
>scanners, etc., might not have support yet.

Thanks, I have quite a few peripherals, I somehow doubt the transition
will be a painless one for me :-)
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 2:24:42 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:V2bDe.2816$Wt3.326@bignews3.bellsouth.net...

> I just wanted to get a 64-bit OS. I just don't see any point in having
> an Athlon 64 running in a 32-bit operating system. It seems like a waste
> to me. When they say 64 bit is no benefit for the home user, they are
> talking about the average drone reading e-mails and surfing the internet.
> We are talking about PC gamers and power users. The "average home user"
> would probably do just fine on a $299 Dell, that doesn't mean I want to
> run that system.

There have been reports that some 32-bit games run faster under 64-bit
Windows XP. Probably due to drivers and kernel running in 64-bit.
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 9:27:09 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 10:24:42 -0500, "Kroagnon" <kroagnon@kroagnon.com> wrote:

>
>"Magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>news:V2bDe.2816$Wt3.326@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
>> I just wanted to get a 64-bit OS. I just don't see any point in having
>> an Athlon 64 running in a 32-bit operating system. It seems like a waste
>> to me. When they say 64 bit is no benefit for the home user, they are
>> talking about the average drone reading e-mails and surfing the internet.
>> We are talking about PC gamers and power users. The "average home user"
>> would probably do just fine on a $299 Dell, that doesn't mean I want to
>> run that system.
>
>There have been reports that some 32-bit games run faster under 64-bit
>Windows XP. Probably due to drivers and kernel running in 64-bit.

And the reverse is also true.
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 3:05:14 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Spalls Hurgenson" <yoinks@ebalu.com> wrote in message
news:r3emd1dles3m890vvnla1iuduhrjl1d1vp@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 23:51:57 GMT, "OldDog" <OldDog@citypound.dogs>
> wrote:
>
>>How can a person tell if they have the Starforce driver running on their
>>pc?
>>Would it be listed under applications running, if so, by what name?
>
> Because it is a driver and not an application, it does not show up in
> the taskmanager applications list. However, you can check to see if it
> loaded with Device Manager.
>
> Press the Windows-key (next to ALT button) and Pause key (upper right
> corner, usually third key to the right of the F12 key) at the same
> time to summon up the System Properties window.
>
> Click Hardware tab, then click "Device Manager" button
>
> On the menubar, click "VIEW" then select "Show Hidden Devices"
>
> Scroll down and expand the "Non-Plug and Play Drivers" tree.
>
> If Starforce is installed, you will see it listed as something similar
> to "Starforce protection software".
>
> Starforce "protected" games pop-up a dialog box when you start them up
> where it says something along the lines of "checking CD" with a
> progress bar. Also, they require you to reboot after you install the
> game (this is so the driver loads).
>
> To remove Starforce drivers, download the removal tool available at
> http://www.onlinesecurity-on.com/protect.phtml?c=55
>
> Note that any game that requires the drivers will automatically
> reinstall them next time you start the game (prompting you to reboot),
> so it's usually best to use the removal tool AFTER uninstalling any
> "protected" games.
>
>
>

Thanks for the info. I now know that I have 3 verisons of it installed on
my pc. Now I wonder which games installed it?
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 11:34:58 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

> "OldDog" wrote:
>
>>How can a person tell if they have the Starforce driver running on their pc?
>>Would it be listed under applications running, if so, by what name?
>
> Because it is a driver and not an application, it does not show up in
> the taskmanager applications list. However, you can check to see if it
> loaded with Device Manager.
>
> Press the Windows-key (next to ALT button) and Pause key (upper right
> corner, usually third key to the right of the F12 key) at the same
> time to summon up the System Properties window.
>
> Click Hardware tab, then click "Device Manager" button
>
> On the menubar, click "VIEW" then select "Show Hidden Devices"
>
> Scroll down and expand the "Non-Plug and Play Drivers" tree.
>
> If Starforce is installed, you will see it listed as something similar
> to "Starforce protection software".

I don't have any StarForce driver here, at the moment, but thought i
could mention that at the same place one can also find the related
"SecDrv" (Macrovision's 'SafeDrive Copy Prevention System').

My SecDrv : Properties : Drivers : Startup : Type :
was set to 'Automatic' and the driver was started at every boot and
running all the time.
I changed it to 'Demand' and now the "Current status" Status: shows it
as 'Stopped' except for after having played a game using it. So it seems
at least the game i was testing with is able to invoke the driver when
/needed/ .

Maybe one can do the same for the 'StarForce Copy Prevention System'
Driver? (For whatever it might be worth.)

In another subthread it was discussed that the StarForce driver runs in
ring 0. How can one tell if a driver is run there or under ring 1? Is
that perhaps inferred from it showing up under "Non-Plug and Play Drivers"?

--
Please followup in newsgroup.
E-mail address is invalid due to spam-control.
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 8:42:25 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

> I don't have any StarForce driver here, at the moment, but thought i
> could mention that at the same place one can also find the related
> "SecDrv" (Macrovision's 'SafeDrive Copy Prevention System').

Hmmm... Thank you, wasn't aware of that one.

> In another subthread it was discussed that the StarForce driver runs in
> ring 0. How can one tell if a driver is run there or under ring 1? Is
> that perhaps inferred from it showing up under "Non-Plug and Play Drivers"?

WinXP runs all drivers at ring zero. It's a design decision; MS
considered that stability was less important on a home OS than speed,
and running the drivers at ring zero allows games to run slightly
faster. This is one of the reasons XP runs games faster than Win2000
did.
The main cost is that the system can not be guaranteed stable, as any
buggy driver can take down the system. It's probably a common problem,
but as most users think that software can crash the system, and in any
case _expect_ windows to crash, they don't connect crashes/bluescreens
to buggy third-party drivers.

This IMO unfortunate design decision also gives not only copyright
enforcing software but also other forms of malicious software a natural
hiding space & administrator rights.
!