No-CD Hacks: Another casualty of the shift to consoles??

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Quaestor wrote:

> James Garvin wrote:
>
>> The Dells seem to have a better hardware config for Win2k/XP, plus out
>> of the box they come with decent hardware (although the onboard sound
>> is funky)
>
>
>
> Or you can learn something about hardware, buy the best parts, and build
> a far better machine for less money, something you can change as things
> progress, something you won't need to throw away in 12 months.

Or you could read the thread. That will never (ok maybe not very often)
happen in a corporation.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"Lynley James" <lynley.james@gmail.com> wrote in message
news😛6q461l54e4ff7625rinmll8u0bio3ma1l@4ax.com...
> On 17 Apr 2005 01:21:58 GMT, Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> wrote:
>
>>Lynley James <lynley.james@gmail.com> once tried to test me with:
>>
>>> That's the thing. Most people out there, even those with the
>>> knowledge to use cracks, have little to no idea how to use something
>>> more advanced than simply double clicking on an .exe. SInce Windows
>>> made it easier to use PCs the need to learn to tweak and fiddle, and
>>> thus learn about programs and programming, has gone.
>>
>>/sigh, some times I wish we were back in the good old days of 1984. 😉
>
> AS much as I comlained about DOS back in the day, I do actually miss
> it. Having to config sound drivers was just so much fun.
>
> Lynley :O)

As a non-pc guru type, I used to derive a great sense of accomplishment
managing memory, changing interrupts, and the like so that I could get DOS
games to run. That was all part of the fun. I remember the days when
people used to brag about how much mem they could squeeze out of their rig.
Amongst my non-pc literate friends and work associates, I was considered a
"computer genius" because I knew a few DOS commands and could make things
happens on that black screen with the error msg. that had them completely
befuddled. Those days are long gone; now I know far less about pc's than I
knew then.....because I don't have to know anything to get most programs to
run. Back then, I actually was forced to participate in the technology to
some degree.....now I'm just a largely clueless end-user. Most non-tech
people just use technology (cars, electronics, pc's, etc.), but don't know
any more about than some neolithic tribesman. For a while, at least, I
actually was forced to learn some tech background in order to run my pc.
This was a good thing.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

In message <azz8e.179$J11.113@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>, DocScorpio
<DocScorpio@stupra-spammeros.com> writes
>
>"Lynley James" <lynley.james@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news😛6q461l54e4ff7625rinmll8u0bio3ma1l@4ax.com...
>> On 17 Apr 2005 01:21:58 GMT, Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Lynley James <lynley.james@gmail.com> once tried to test me with:
>>>
>>>> That's the thing. Most people out there, even those with the
>>>> knowledge to use cracks, have little to no idea how to use something
>>>> more advanced than simply double clicking on an .exe. SInce Windows
>>>> made it easier to use PCs the need to learn to tweak and fiddle, and
>>>> thus learn about programs and programming, has gone.
>>>
>>>/sigh, some times I wish we were back in the good old days of 1984. 😉
>>
>> AS much as I comlained about DOS back in the day, I do actually miss
>> it. Having to config sound drivers was just so much fun.
>>
>> Lynley :O)
>
>As a non-pc guru type, I used to derive a great sense of accomplishment
>managing memory, changing interrupts, and the like so that I could get DOS
>games to run. That was all part of the fun. I remember the days when
>people used to brag about how much mem they could squeeze out of their rig.
>Amongst my non-pc literate friends and work associates, I was considered a
>"computer genius" because I knew a few DOS commands and could make things
>happens on that black screen with the error msg. that had them completely
>befuddled. Those days are long gone; now I know far less about pc's than I
>knew then.....because I don't have to know anything to get most programs to
>run. Back then, I actually was forced to participate in the technology to
>some degree.....now I'm just a largely clueless end-user. Most non-tech
>people just use technology (cars, electronics, pc's, etc.), but don't know
>any more about than some neolithic tribesman. For a while, at least, I
>actually was forced to learn some tech background in order to run my pc.
>This was a good thing.
>
>
Oh yes, I remember those days. When you could expect to spend the first
day after purchasing a game just in getting it to run. When you had a
stock of boot disks, one for each game (of course there weren't so many
games in those days). Mind you my first machine was a C64 - that's 64k
of RAM, and nothing else. The entire program had to load and run in that
64k.
This is like the history of motoring, I think, though compressed in
time. Early drivers carried a toolkit and fully expected to use it on
most journeys - they had to be mechanics as well as drivers. Even 25
years ago I was doing my own maintenance, setting the timing and the
spark gaps. Now I check the oil and fill the washer bottle - anything
more sophisticated has to be done in the garage.
--
John Secker
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"Quaestor" <no_spam@my.place> wrote in message
news:1164nv575ati715@news.supernews.com...
> James Garvin wrote:
>
>> The Dells seem to have a better hardware config for Win2k/XP, plus out of
>> the box they come with decent hardware (although the onboard sound is
>> funky)
>
> Or you can learn something about hardware, buy the best parts, and build a
> far better machine for less money, something you can change as things
> progress, something you won't need to throw away in 12 months.

He is talking about office computers.

No IT Admin/Support person in his right mind would pre buy components to
build PC's for an office. Unfortunately the big producers have a good source
of income there.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Ceowulf wrote:

> "Quaestor" <no_spam@my.place> wrote in message
> news:1164nv575ati715@news.supernews.com...
>
>>James Garvin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The Dells seem to have a better hardware config for Win2k/XP, plus out of
>>>the box they come with decent hardware (although the onboard sound is
>>>funky)
>>
>>Or you can learn something about hardware, buy the best parts, and build a
>>far better machine for less money, something you can change as things
>>progress, something you won't need to throw away in 12 months.
>
>
> He is talking about office computers.

Exactly!

> No IT Admin/Support person in his right mind would pre buy components to
> build PC's for an office. Unfortunately the big producers have a good source
> of income there.

Agreed. Dell, Gateway, and the whitebox folks (e-machines et al) really
make some serious money off of corps buying hundreds of boxes at a time.

On that note. I can't say that I haven't seen building boxes in house
being done. Hell, I've even hand built over 100 machines before, BUT
this was in the early/mid 90's and the savings were enormous! Now, it
is far cheaper just to by the box system from the manufacturer.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> once tried to test me with:

>> Yeah, and non-coders wouldn't have a clue about what the source code
>> did. Think about how much fun malicious crackers could have then.
>> Besides that, even coders aren't going to arse themselves to go over
>> source code every time they want to install a game crack. Sure, it
>> would be FUN, the first 20 or 30 times. And educational. But everyone
>> gets lazy some day. :)
>
> Also, if the crack modifies executable code - and EVEN if it just
> inserts NOPs - you really don't know whether it's a trojan unless you
> completely disassemble and reverse-engineer what it modifies.

Why would you have to disassemble it if it has source code?

--

Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com

Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Lynley James <lynley.james@gmail.com> once tried to test me with:

> They don't specify a program, rather a dialogue box pops up with a
> message along the lines of, " This program has detected CD emulation
> software on your PC, please uninstall before attempting another
> install of this program." AT least that's what FarCry gave me.

Hmmm interesting. It would be nice if they were specific but at least
that's telling you WHY and most people don't run more than one CD emu
software. :)

--

Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com

Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"DocScorpio" <DocScorpio@stupra-spammeros.com> once tried to test me with:

> now I'm just a largely clueless end-user.

The sad thing is, even if you are a programmer, you might fit this
description to the degree that you're probably specialized in a specific
type of coding and wouldn't really have a clue how some other stuff might
work. Of course there are geniuses who seem to know it all but you can
count me out of that group.

--

Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com

Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Knight37 in <Xns963CD83541C08knight37m@130.133.1.4>:

> Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> once tried to test me with:
....
> > Also, if the crack modifies executable code - and EVEN if it just
> > inserts NOPs - you really don't know whether it's a trojan unless you
> > completely disassemble and reverse-engineer what it modifies.
>
> Why would you have to disassemble it if it has source code?

> > unless you
> > completely disassemble and reverse-engineer what it modifies
------------------------------------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^