I don't see how that is really useful. Shouldn't you already have the original text version of such a document? PDF was never made for 'importing' and editing.
If you love Kate like me, Kate is available as beta for Windows. Beyond that, there is gVim/Vim and many other editors ported from Unix-like environments.
I said the demos that were left unprotected were a good starting point for crackers. You are right in saying the retail versions have cracked executables too, because no copy protection is going to stop these motivated crackers. I recall that Splinter Cell Double Agent was protected with StarForce (the worst yet of all the copy protections). A real proper crack did not come out till 1 year later. That is some serious devotion.
SecuROM and SafeDisc have existed for a very long time. The first SecuROM game I ever got was Diablo II. Once CloneCD came out and 1:1 copied CDs were possible, that and SafeDisc (of the time) were broken. Beyond that, cracked EXEs still existed (and I tended to use these anyway, sped up loading time and still do quite often). SecuROM of that time was quite simple, relying upon subchannel data (similar to PSX's copy protection that came along later) for a checksum, of which Data CD copiers at the time did NOT read at all (like Easy CD Creator of the time, which came with my first burner). SafeDisc did nearly the same thing, except with corrupted data, similar to their CSS protection; files on the disc were placed but were also corrupted data (and possibly encrypted) that drives could read but no general user programs would ever read properly to a hard drive or to an ISO image (not even Nero). If I took a disc like that and used dd to copy it, dd would fail upon seeing those sectors even on a completely clean CD. CloneCD started the whole 1:1 copy 'revolution' (which has led to Alcohol 120%, AnyDVD, and other products) and made it possible to copy these CDs up until SecuROM and SafeDisc both got major security upgrades to the point where it is now, you might as well (a have the real disc or b) use a crack.
For some reason, although many games used the disc ONLY to check for a real disc and did not read any data from it like older games would (what ever happened to leaving the FMVs on the disc? No I don't have 9 GB to spare for EVERY game, sorry!), this did not stir up any controversy. People were only beginning to get CD burners (they were also slow), media was not nearly as cheap as it is now, many people still had 56k so downloading ISO's was unheard of, and a number of other factors kept CD copy protection information in the dark to most consumers.
The real controversy started with StarForce by the way. I think people seem to have forgotten about this. UbiSoft finally decided to stop using it after much consumer demand, and in general, guess how many games have StarForce now. None that I have heard of recently.
I am a consumer of PC games but I wonder for how long because I was perfectly happy buying games and I was glad that cracks worked, even on-line. I was glad that even though there was a stupid copy protection (most people would often not notice their disc is spinning during that Sims screen just for copy protection sectors), I could backup these games in some form. Cracked copy is better than none. Do any company give you a new CD if you scratch yours up? Very few do, and they give you a hard time about it. I remember that enough complaints to Take2 made GTA3 for PC no longer have copy protection (which was SafeDisc, a version that did not work with the current version of CloneCD). Take2 released an update that included bug fixes and no copy protection.
If EA wants to not have complaints about this copy protection other than what it does to Windows, they should preferably drop it altogether, go back to SafeDisc (a much less draconian system), or give people 5 copies for those 5 activations! Legally, due to the DMCA, we cannot even make backups! But EA should not forget about Windows. It sucks, everyone knows, however, Sony, Macrovision and a number of other companies make software for Windows that just makes it slower, could leave it vulnerable to attacks, etc, especially since many are kernel driver-based (SecuROM has been this way since its beginning; StarForce takes this approach; SafeDisc takes this approach in a much more minimalistic way).
I'm glad to hear that, but I've installed several games before that would still install their copy protection and the EXE (and other files if necessary) was cracked.
It might sound like a dumb idea and has no reason (there is no disc to authenticate with), but the DRM is present in demo versions only because crackers used to use demos to crack the retail versions of the games. They were a good starting point (especially with StarForce games) as most of the code to start the game was EXACTLY the same as what would appear in the retail version if it had not a copy protection placed on it.
It's true. Piracy will only continue to spike too either as a real 'stick it to the man' type of attitude of gamers or simply 'I don't have the money but I really want to play'. Honestly, I support both opinions because I hate DRM. Even the cracked games still run the normal installers which still install SecuROM or SafeDisc or whatever they want to use at any given time. So yeah you still have that 'garbage' running on your PC that can never be fully removed, seemingly. The EXE (and other files) are cracked to return success to every SecuROM request. That is all. Like a dongle emulator crack. As far as on-line play, so many games have had their server software cracked so you can just play with other 'piraters'.
Sony owns SecuROM. Where are they now? Where's their remover? They should have one, and I think I remember that they do.
Regardless, the DRM does not work as every game gets cracked eventually (crackers love doing it, it is fun for them and it gives them the reputation they want amongst the others in the 'scene'). Even StarForce (a strong VM-based copy protection, at first) games got cracked eventually; the release group RELOADED even released their documentation on the protection. Honestly, what has not been cracked yet? All companies can do, like Sony, is make new versions of SecuROM and fix whatever exploit/bug/etc that the crackers found and used as part of their 'fix'. Then the next big title has that fix from Sony/Macrovision/etc, and the crackers figure out their next workaround.
If the game companies would just realise that no copy protection is going to stop piracy, then they would stop wasting money on it. Even console copy protections, now PS3 even (although still a work in progress), get cracked, under the guise of wanting to use homebrew software (which should be allowed even if a copy protection for games is still present, in my opinion).
The first solution to the whole problem of piracy is make better games and stop milking series. Why does this keep happening? Call of Duty X, Medal of Honor X, Need for Speed X, Tony Hawk's X, and etc. Get back to creativity and make some new games. Spore is a good step towards this but unfortunately it comes with SecuROM. Yes, everyone wants Diablo III and C&C Red Alert 3 (even me), but I also want new games too. Perhaps those can go into series, but companies are so bad at making these kind of products in general that once one version becomes a hit, they want to make another knowing many people will outright buy it (they might even leave a cliffhanger at the end of the story just to make you get the 3rd which will come out who knows when). I would say 7 or 6 times out of 10 this scheme does NOT work. People buy said title version 2 or whatever, but often companies do try hard (and I give the developers credit), but they cannot top their first version.
There are still some DLLs that are ie* in system32 and other places than %ProgramFiles%\Internet Explorer. IE and Explorer in my opinion have not been completely separated. Progress has been made but it is almost like Microsoft thinks everyone is a fool because now when you type a URL into Windows Explorer all that happens is a IE browser will pop up if IE is your default.
These are from XP SP3 with IE 8 beta 2 and are still in the system32 directory.
A few may not be IE, but iesetup.exe? Come on. I don't see ffsetup.exe (even though Firefox is installed). And that is because Firefox is truly separate from the OS, unlike IE. If IE was truly separated, Windows Explorer and other Windows apps would not need to reference these DLLs at all, rather %ProgramFiles%\Internet Explorer. What sucks more is the apps (and many old apps) that can no longer run on XP and Vista due to linking to the IE6 rendering engine. This should have never happened in the first place! Even McAfee's interface used Internet Explorer. I remember many software packages back in the day forcing people to upgrade to IE5.5 or whatever the latest version was just because it was free. And that was even at a time when Netscape users were still just trying to use their preferred browser on a Windows that now just HAD to have IE installed.
I use Wine to run WEP games all the time, even on x86-64 Gentoo Linux. It works better than native Windows. It translates the old widgets to Win32 widgets correctly unlike Windows XP for many widgets. The only thing Windows XP translates correctly is the menus. It does not fix theming so therefore an app will only look like it fits in your environment if you use classic theme.
Their ATMs run Windows 2000 or XP, at least for Bank of America. All banks really care is that no one can break an ATM open easily. That why the safe is very thick and impenetrable by most guns and bombs.
Do you trust the government? I do not, whatsoever. Considering all the laws that have been passed in the last 8 years that breach on our freedoms (i.e. PATRIOT Act, DMCA), I disagree with many laws and will gladly break any. At this point, for the individual, the only real question is why bother having ethics when you know there are no repercussions? Music downloading for MOST has not had any repercussions.
Our government is corrupt and run by the industry leaders, not the people. Is 'the people' by definition the wealthiest people? At the time of the Constitution's writing, you must remember that 'the people' meant wealthy, white men by connotation. Why should anyone, regardless of race but surely not within that definition (basically everyone middle class and lower), care to follow their laws?
Most agree, myself included, that murder/assualt/(insert violent crime here) is not okay, and that physical property stealing is also not okay.
Police are just doing their job that our 'trusty' government assigned them to. It is not their fault entirely that they have to arrest you for any possible reason. It is just their job. Just like if you need your car to get to work (and it is your fault if you did not pay for it or any other reason why it may be towed), and it is being towed. That is the tower's job. He surely is not going to stop doing his job so you can do your job. In every case, the individual who can perform legal action stands above the other. The other person surely could assault the tower, nothing is preventing them from that other than the thought of consequences. It would be in their best interest NOT to do that, and that is how most people think when it comes to violent crime. That is how our society, over the past millennium has agreed on violent crimes.
A stark contrast from crimes like downloading anything copyrighted off P2P. NO ONE agrees completely on what to do about it. Only the industry leaders think that the Internet should be censored and monitored, and even changed so that it can provide content in a more streamlined manner, but still with DRM.
I've been using nLite (and many other utilities and the $OEM$ folder and my own batch scripts) to customise my XP installs for years. Just recently I did a very custom install of XP with SP3 and nearly all my software, drivers, and all the crap removed. I also make custom discs for VirtualBox of 2000 and XP with nLite and for Vista I use vLite. I was able to bring Vista down to 1400 MB and install size was 4.5 GB. Beyond that, what Microsoft does not tell everyone is that there are ways to bypass the 512 MB memory requirement for Vista (and the 128 MB memory requirement for XP). Just editing files. nLite and vLite both do it automatically, along with slipstreaming updates and so many other good tweaks.
That being said, Linux is still my main OS, and that is slim too, being a very customised Gentoo. No sense at all these days how software companies just want to overload everyone. Average size of a PC game is now at least 6 GB installed. I am seeing more and more dual-layer PC games come out.
I think developers need to reconsider how big files really have to be. Why do the textures HAVE to be that large? And why such high quality audio? Sometimes, and most of the time, there is just no need. Now that there is the ability to use extremely high quality textures and perhaps DTS audio, game development companies are jumping to the occasion. This will only result in more people wanting consoles because they are cheaper and generally "just work" (minus RRoDs, laser problems with the PS2, and other things). Plus, you do not have to spend an hour just installing the game before playing.
Now no one can complain "it does not run Linux," but everyone including myself can complain AGAIN that "it does not have full access to the system". And yet Sony at first marketed the system as a machine intended for many things, not just games. Being able to install Linux adds to that, but they are not 'pandering' anyone when they purposely limit the ability of an OS on their hardware that someone else pays (in all honesty) a substantial amount of money for. As far as I know, no one signs an agreement saying the hardware is Sony's no matter what when they buy a PS3 (the same is not true for the development kit). Hackers should be able to do whatever they wish with hardware they own.
Very true. It is almost like the film industry where they expect us to buy the same film X times in whatever the latest greatest format is (now Blu-Ray).
Sony and all the other companies just want more money as always will be the case. They want us to re-purchase everything. They want such that we can use everything once and we have to pay again to use it again.
But then again, consumers are very very ignorant to this kind of thing. They trust in their companies; many still think Sony is 'the best' electronics company ever. They do not think these companies that they have come to love are capable of such anti-consumer moves.
I completely disagree. Sony could just give access for non-commercial use. All Sony has tried to do with PS2/PS3 Linux is prevent decent game development, making Linux for the consoles nearly useless. Instead of making the licence state 'not for commercial development' and suing anyone who does not follow, they block access to basically the 'most important' parts of their systems, the graphics processors. Why bother installing Linux then? Would not it be cool to run some of those free OpenGL games (such as Neverball) on the PS3's amazing graphics card? I think so. Sony strongly disagrees. And I also think it would be a lot of fun to put these consoles to their limits without having to be a signed developer. They surpass most PCs in terms of power and cost a lot less.
It's not that it's not 'real Linux'. It is just that is extremely limited Linux in terms of the machine it is being run on. It is virtualised Linux regardless because it has a hypervisor (which prevents dumping of Blu-Ray discs with dd, and like said before, blocks access to several SPEs and the graphics card).
Maybe the whole industry should stop selling consoles at a loss and relying upon games to bring in money. This is a model that is surely not going to last. Nintendo is making profit when they sell a Wii. Yeah, it certainly is limited in comparison to its counterparts, but Nintendo will not rely upon a model that really has barely worked for both MS and Sony.
It is true. Many people who 'enjoy the hackers work' (whom many do not intend for usage with pirated games) just use the exploits to play downloaded/pirated games. I would say that less than 5% of the population and perhaps less than 10% of the world really is totally immersed in hacking their consoles (some are intrigued by the idea, some think blindly 'torrents are illegal', some do not want to be banned from an online service like box Live). Of those percentages, it must be admitted that without a doubt a majority of users are pirating games (maybe they buy a few sometimes). Especially for the PSP, a large number of the exploits were simply to load pirated games and/or bypass the firmware version check.
There is a LOT of attention and appreciation for these hackers. I think these hackers love that and that they continue to be successful at cracking open basically a 'virtual safe'. They are cracking things that the companies who make the products want none of. If a company is open to user modifications, that hardly qualifies as 'cracking', as a company like that would probably release specifications, etc.
For the individual hacker, it is definitely a feeling of 'I have beat them at their own game'. And for both the hacker and the community, it is that and a statement like 'We will continue cracking until you give us what we want'. What people want is subjective. Some strictly would like to see homebrew allowed legally on all consoles. Some would like to be able to use backups as well as legitimate copies of their games. Regardless, a very high number of the users of homebrew, modchips, and other modifications to consoles enjoy being able to play downloaded games without having to pay for them.
These products are definitely 'defective by design'. The whole scheme of video game selling has always been to screw over a consumer. Today you cannot return a game if you legitimately dislike it after playing (ridiculous considering some are $50+). You also legally cannot make a backup copy and use that to keep the original safe 5 year olds and optical discs? As if. And when they get ruined, does the company give you a new copy when you send in your old one? Very few do. So 90% of the time you are stuck buying a new copy if you want to stay all legal.
To the companies involved: give us at least A) homebrew ability (and free development tools and full access to the console (that means you, Sony) for at the least non-commercial use), and B) backup ability (that includes PC games!).
That MS would surely get in trouble for this, but MS could very well use a repository, along with MD5 hashes of recommended programs.
They could provide what we Linux users have with Synaptic and dpkg. They could provide "MS Legit Software", "Driver Repository", "3rd party Software", and "GPL and derivatives". There's 6 branches of Windows to do right now (98, ME, 2k, XP, 03 server, Vista), and most of them are rather outdated.
I hate Windows but I'd love to see this in practise. The thing is, if Microsoft will not do it (no Windows Update is not the answer), then who will? Someone very generous in my opinion. Say hypothetically someone ports Synaptic or some kind of 'simple GUI-based' package manager for Windows for free software, and this can become an outlet for proprietary software as well. There is Steam, but that is games and only proprietary ones at that.
Windows and OS X desperately need package managers. OS X already has finch and portage (from Gentoo). Honestly, Apple and Microsoft should provide a way for software vendors to sell their software through a package manager as well. Apple has already set up a decent system for song distribution (iTunes), so why not extend it to software. iTunes has many free songs and non-free. A software package manager should have FOSS, freeware, shareware, and proprietary. For both shareware and proprietary, it should be as simple as enter appropriate information and a CC #, and the software is licensed and installed. Then, if you reinstall, you log in with your account for proprietary software and you can reinstall. No activation checks! Uninstallation is simple as well, just click the remove button in the package manager. If it was proprietary software you paid for, you can keep the license (for later reinstall or for another computer) or request your money back. There should not be 5 different package managers using 5 different standards. Just one open standard, anyone can choose what package manager they like best. Us 'admins' may prefer a command line package manager as opposed to a GUI one.
Does this spell the end of boxed software? I would like to think so and I do not care. As for software that 'has to be paid for', it should reduce cost of the software as well because no disc pressing, no box printing. With a package manager, the manual should come in CHM, PDF, or HTML (up to vendor) and be very easy to access.
It is at that stage where MS should set the standards for how software is to be written for Windows, regardless of licence. They can simply cut the software that is 'bad overall' or buggy out of the package manager. However, I almost wish they could have government-imposed non-bias for competing software like OpenOffice vs their own suite.
With Windows, many users simply do not know what is legitimate software and what is going to screw their system up, especially when the software is given a title such as 'AntiVirus XP 2008'. And where do you get software? A random web site. We now have the Internet, and the ability to verify files to make sure they are the correct ones (MD5, CRC, etc). Linux distros have realised the power of this and used it to its full advantage. Apple has done this with music. Valve has done it for PC games. Microsoft also has also sort of done it for music, but they both need to do the same for software.
Is it plausible that we could have OS's that have a package manager that manages EVERYTHING that we do not create? Say, it's no longer iTunes. It iComputer and you have audio tab (music, speech, audio books, etc), books tab, image sets (the porn industry would love this I'm sure, but also images for wallpapers, etc), the software tab (ALL licenses, approved stable and non-stable but working software), and finally video (which again the porn industry will love, but so will the film industry). Will it be DRM'd? Some of it, yes, unfortunately, but it is a leap in comparison to what there is available on proprietary OS's now.
How many people at home really care? I have WPA (cannot enable WPA2 because one laptop does not support it for now) and a decently long password with capitals and numbers in not-so-predictable places. I still see a TON of open or WEP-encrypted neighbourhood wi-fis just driving around, especially when I was a 'on-site tech'. For the people I worked with I tried to explain the importance and used the extreme example of someone coming in, downloading child pornography, and then leaving. I certainly would never want that to happen to me. How do you claim non-fault when it is YOUR network?
Overall, consumers do not realise why it is important to enable AT LEAST WEP. It just makes it so the 'wardriver' has to do at least a little work. Besides, I have seen so many non-encrypted networks where even the administration for the router settings were not even touched. I could log in with the default user name and password and potentially change things and even disable Internet. The owner would probably not know what to do, and they think they are safe simply because of the neighbourhood they are in. I am not sure how people treat their wireless in a place like NYC (I imagine there are many more informed people on security than in the 'sticks' neighbourhoods like mine). WPA is not uncrackable, it is just harder to do so. Dictionary attack is pretty much guaranteed not to work if the consumer is smart enough to not make a word password.
Unfortunately for DS owners, Nintendo is in backwards world and still will not add WPA to their device (but that is another story).
Why not just code native code then? I know this involves things like actual memory management on your own, but I still don't see AutoCAD.NET or Lightwave.NET. My guess is they do not see any performance benefits even though they can do 'rapid development' with.NET unlike native C or C++.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see how that is really useful. Shouldn't you already have the original text version of such a document? PDF was never made for 'importing' and editing.
Notepad++
If you love Kate like me, Kate is available as beta for Windows. Beyond that, there is gVim/Vim and many other editors ported from Unix-like environments.
bash: format: command not found
I said the demos that were left unprotected were a good starting point for crackers. You are right in saying the retail versions have cracked executables too, because no copy protection is going to stop these motivated crackers. I recall that Splinter Cell Double Agent was protected with StarForce (the worst yet of all the copy protections). A real proper crack did not come out till 1 year later. That is some serious devotion.
SecuROM and SafeDisc have existed for a very long time. The first SecuROM game I ever got was Diablo II. Once CloneCD came out and 1:1 copied CDs were possible, that and SafeDisc (of the time) were broken. Beyond that, cracked EXEs still existed (and I tended to use these anyway, sped up loading time and still do quite often). SecuROM of that time was quite simple, relying upon subchannel data (similar to PSX's copy protection that came along later) for a checksum, of which Data CD copiers at the time did NOT read at all (like Easy CD Creator of the time, which came with my first burner). SafeDisc did nearly the same thing, except with corrupted data, similar to their CSS protection; files on the disc were placed but were also corrupted data (and possibly encrypted) that drives could read but no general user programs would ever read properly to a hard drive or to an ISO image (not even Nero). If I took a disc like that and used dd to copy it, dd would fail upon seeing those sectors even on a completely clean CD. CloneCD started the whole 1:1 copy 'revolution' (which has led to Alcohol 120%, AnyDVD, and other products) and made it possible to copy these CDs up until SecuROM and SafeDisc both got major security upgrades to the point where it is now, you might as well (a have the real disc or b) use a crack.
For some reason, although many games used the disc ONLY to check for a real disc and did not read any data from it like older games would (what ever happened to leaving the FMVs on the disc? No I don't have 9 GB to spare for EVERY game, sorry!), this did not stir up any controversy. People were only beginning to get CD burners (they were also slow), media was not nearly as cheap as it is now, many people still had 56k so downloading ISO's was unheard of, and a number of other factors kept CD copy protection information in the dark to most consumers.
The real controversy started with StarForce by the way. I think people seem to have forgotten about this. UbiSoft finally decided to stop using it after much consumer demand, and in general, guess how many games have StarForce now. None that I have heard of recently.
I am a consumer of PC games but I wonder for how long because I was perfectly happy buying games and I was glad that cracks worked, even on-line. I was glad that even though there was a stupid copy protection (most people would often not notice their disc is spinning during that Sims screen just for copy protection sectors), I could backup these games in some form. Cracked copy is better than none. Do any company give you a new CD if you scratch yours up? Very few do, and they give you a hard time about it. I remember that enough complaints to Take2 made GTA3 for PC no longer have copy protection (which was SafeDisc, a version that did not work with the current version of CloneCD). Take2 released an update that included bug fixes and no copy protection.
If EA wants to not have complaints about this copy protection other than what it does to Windows, they should preferably drop it altogether, go back to SafeDisc (a much less draconian system), or give people 5 copies for those 5 activations! Legally, due to the DMCA, we cannot even make backups! But EA should not forget about Windows. It sucks, everyone knows, however, Sony, Macrovision and a number of other companies make software for Windows that just makes it slower, could leave it vulnerable to attacks, etc, especially since many are kernel driver-based (SecuROM has been this way since its beginning; StarForce takes this approach; SafeDisc takes this approach in a much more minimalistic way).
I do
I'm glad to hear that, but I've installed several games before that would still install their copy protection and the EXE (and other files if necessary) was cracked.
It might sound like a dumb idea and has no reason (there is no disc to authenticate with), but the DRM is present in demo versions only because crackers used to use demos to crack the retail versions of the games. They were a good starting point (especially with StarForce games) as most of the code to start the game was EXACTLY the same as what would appear in the retail version if it had not a copy protection placed on it.
It's true. Piracy will only continue to spike too either as a real 'stick it to the man' type of attitude of gamers or simply 'I don't have the money but I really want to play'. Honestly, I support both opinions because I hate DRM. Even the cracked games still run the normal installers which still install SecuROM or SafeDisc or whatever they want to use at any given time. So yeah you still have that 'garbage' running on your PC that can never be fully removed, seemingly. The EXE (and other files) are cracked to return success to every SecuROM request. That is all. Like a dongle emulator crack. As far as on-line play, so many games have had their server software cracked so you can just play with other 'piraters'.
Sony owns SecuROM. Where are they now? Where's their remover? They should have one, and I think I remember that they do.
Regardless, the DRM does not work as every game gets cracked eventually (crackers love doing it, it is fun for them and it gives them the reputation they want amongst the others in the 'scene'). Even StarForce (a strong VM-based copy protection, at first) games got cracked eventually; the release group RELOADED even released their documentation on the protection. Honestly, what has not been cracked yet? All companies can do, like Sony, is make new versions of SecuROM and fix whatever exploit/bug/etc that the crackers found and used as part of their 'fix'. Then the next big title has that fix from Sony/Macrovision/etc, and the crackers figure out their next workaround.
If the game companies would just realise that no copy protection is going to stop piracy, then they would stop wasting money on it. Even console copy protections, now PS3 even (although still a work in progress), get cracked, under the guise of wanting to use homebrew software (which should be allowed even if a copy protection for games is still present, in my opinion).
The first solution to the whole problem of piracy is make better games and stop milking series. Why does this keep happening? Call of Duty X, Medal of Honor X, Need for Speed X, Tony Hawk's X, and etc. Get back to creativity and make some new games. Spore is a good step towards this but unfortunately it comes with SecuROM. Yes, everyone wants Diablo III and C&C Red Alert 3 (even me), but I also want new games too. Perhaps those can go into series, but companies are so bad at making these kind of products in general that once one version becomes a hit, they want to make another knowing many people will outright buy it (they might even leave a cliffhanger at the end of the story just to make you get the 3rd which will come out who knows when). I would say 7 or 6 times out of 10 this scheme does NOT work. People buy said title version 2 or whatever, but often companies do try hard (and I give the developers credit), but they cannot top their first version.
There are still some DLLs that are ie* in system32 and other places than %ProgramFiles%\Internet Explorer. IE and Explorer in my opinion have not been completely separated. Progress has been made but it is almost like Microsoft thinks everyone is a fool because now when you type a URL into Windows Explorer all that happens is a IE browser will pop up if IE is your default.
These are from XP SP3 with IE 8 beta 2 and are still in the system32 directory.
ie4uinit.exe
ieakeng.dll
ieaksie.dll
ieakui.dll
ieapfltr.dat
ieapfltr.dll
iedkcs32.dll
ieencode.dll
ieframe.dll
iepeers.dll
iernonce.dll
iertutil.dll
iesetup.dll
ieudinit.exe
ieui.dll
ieuinit.inf
A few may not be IE, but iesetup.exe? Come on. I don't see ffsetup.exe (even though Firefox is installed). And that is because Firefox is truly separate from the OS, unlike IE. If IE was truly separated, Windows Explorer and other Windows apps would not need to reference these DLLs at all, rather %ProgramFiles%\Internet Explorer. What sucks more is the apps (and many old apps) that can no longer run on XP and Vista due to linking to the IE6 rendering engine. This should have never happened in the first place! Even McAfee's interface used Internet Explorer. I remember many software packages back in the day forcing people to upgrade to IE5.5 or whatever the latest version was just because it was free. And that was even at a time when Netscape users were still just trying to use their preferred browser on a Windows that now just HAD to have IE installed.
I use Wine to run WEP games all the time, even on x86-64 Gentoo Linux. It works better than native Windows. It translates the old widgets to Win32 widgets correctly unlike Windows XP for many widgets. The only thing Windows XP translates correctly is the menus. It does not fix theming so therefore an app will only look like it fits in your environment if you use classic theme.
Their ATMs run Windows 2000 or XP, at least for Bank of America. All banks really care is that no one can break an ATM open easily. That why the safe is very thick and impenetrable by most guns and bombs.
Something is wrong with your keyboard as it puts au in place o when it comes to the word fox. :P
Do you trust the government? I do not, whatsoever. Considering all the laws that have been passed in the last 8 years that breach on our freedoms (i.e. PATRIOT Act, DMCA), I disagree with many laws and will gladly break any. At this point, for the individual, the only real question is why bother having ethics when you know there are no repercussions? Music downloading for MOST has not had any repercussions.
Our government is corrupt and run by the industry leaders, not the people. Is 'the people' by definition the wealthiest people? At the time of the Constitution's writing, you must remember that 'the people' meant wealthy, white men by connotation. Why should anyone, regardless of race but surely not within that definition (basically everyone middle class and lower), care to follow their laws?
Most agree, myself included, that murder/assualt/(insert violent crime here) is not okay, and that physical property stealing is also not okay.
Police are just doing their job that our 'trusty' government assigned them to. It is not their fault entirely that they have to arrest you for any possible reason. It is just their job. Just like if you need your car to get to work (and it is your fault if you did not pay for it or any other reason why it may be towed), and it is being towed. That is the tower's job. He surely is not going to stop doing his job so you can do your job. In every case, the individual who can perform legal action stands above the other. The other person surely could assault the tower, nothing is preventing them from that other than the thought of consequences. It would be in their best interest NOT to do that, and that is how most people think when it comes to violent crime. That is how our society, over the past millennium has agreed on violent crimes.
A stark contrast from crimes like downloading anything copyrighted off P2P. NO ONE agrees completely on what to do about it. Only the industry leaders think that the Internet should be censored and monitored, and even changed so that it can provide content in a more streamlined manner, but still with DRM.
I've been using nLite (and many other utilities and the $OEM$ folder and my own batch scripts) to customise my XP installs for years. Just recently I did a very custom install of XP with SP3 and nearly all my software, drivers, and all the crap removed. I also make custom discs for VirtualBox of 2000 and XP with nLite and for Vista I use vLite. I was able to bring Vista down to 1400 MB and install size was 4.5 GB. Beyond that, what Microsoft does not tell everyone is that there are ways to bypass the 512 MB memory requirement for Vista (and the 128 MB memory requirement for XP). Just editing files. nLite and vLite both do it automatically, along with slipstreaming updates and so many other good tweaks.
That being said, Linux is still my main OS, and that is slim too, being a very customised Gentoo. No sense at all these days how software companies just want to overload everyone. Average size of a PC game is now at least 6 GB installed. I am seeing more and more dual-layer PC games come out.
I think developers need to reconsider how big files really have to be. Why do the textures HAVE to be that large? And why such high quality audio? Sometimes, and most of the time, there is just no need. Now that there is the ability to use extremely high quality textures and perhaps DTS audio, game development companies are jumping to the occasion. This will only result in more people wanting consoles because they are cheaper and generally "just work" (minus RRoDs, laser problems with the PS2, and other things). Plus, you do not have to spend an hour just installing the game before playing.
Now no one can complain "it does not run Linux," but everyone including myself can complain AGAIN that "it does not have full access to the system". And yet Sony at first marketed the system as a machine intended for many things, not just games. Being able to install Linux adds to that, but they are not 'pandering' anyone when they purposely limit the ability of an OS on their hardware that someone else pays (in all honesty) a substantial amount of money for. As far as I know, no one signs an agreement saying the hardware is Sony's no matter what when they buy a PS3 (the same is not true for the development kit). Hackers should be able to do whatever they wish with hardware they own.
"Will Smith" has been an editor/writer for Maximum PC for some time. It is obviously not the same Will Smith, but your post made me laugh. :D
Very true. It is almost like the film industry where they expect us to buy the same film X times in whatever the latest greatest format is (now Blu-Ray).
Sony and all the other companies just want more money as always will be the case. They want us to re-purchase everything. They want such that we can use everything once and we have to pay again to use it again.
But then again, consumers are very very ignorant to this kind of thing. They trust in their companies; many still think Sony is 'the best' electronics company ever. They do not think these companies that they have come to love are capable of such anti-consumer moves.
I do not like Kotaku's pro-industry and non-bias articles.
I completely disagree. Sony could just give access for non-commercial use. All Sony has tried to do with PS2/PS3 Linux is prevent decent game development, making Linux for the consoles nearly useless. Instead of making the licence state 'not for commercial development' and suing anyone who does not follow, they block access to basically the 'most important' parts of their systems, the graphics processors. Why bother installing Linux then? Would not it be cool to run some of those free OpenGL games (such as Neverball) on the PS3's amazing graphics card? I think so. Sony strongly disagrees. And I also think it would be a lot of fun to put these consoles to their limits without having to be a signed developer. They surpass most PCs in terms of power and cost a lot less.
It's not that it's not 'real Linux'. It is just that is extremely limited Linux in terms of the machine it is being run on. It is virtualised Linux regardless because it has a hypervisor (which prevents dumping of Blu-Ray discs with dd, and like said before, blocks access to several SPEs and the graphics card).
Maybe the whole industry should stop selling consoles at a loss and relying upon games to bring in money. This is a model that is surely not going to last. Nintendo is making profit when they sell a Wii. Yeah, it certainly is limited in comparison to its counterparts, but Nintendo will not rely upon a model that really has barely worked for both MS and Sony.
It is true. Many people who 'enjoy the hackers work' (whom many do not intend for usage with pirated games) just use the exploits to play downloaded/pirated games. I would say that less than 5% of the population and perhaps less than 10% of the world really is totally immersed in hacking their consoles (some are intrigued by the idea, some think blindly 'torrents are illegal', some do not want to be banned from an online service like box Live). Of those percentages, it must be admitted that without a doubt a majority of users are pirating games (maybe they buy a few sometimes). Especially for the PSP, a large number of the exploits were simply to load pirated games and/or bypass the firmware version check.
There is a LOT of attention and appreciation for these hackers. I think these hackers love that and that they continue to be successful at cracking open basically a 'virtual safe'. They are cracking things that the companies who make the products want none of. If a company is open to user modifications, that hardly qualifies as 'cracking', as a company like that would probably release specifications, etc.
For the individual hacker, it is definitely a feeling of 'I have beat them at their own game'. And for both the hacker and the community, it is that and a statement like 'We will continue cracking until you give us what we want'. What people want is subjective. Some strictly would like to see homebrew allowed legally on all consoles. Some would like to be able to use backups as well as legitimate copies of their games. Regardless, a very high number of the users of homebrew, modchips, and other modifications to consoles enjoy being able to play downloaded games without having to pay for them.
These products are definitely 'defective by design'. The whole scheme of video game selling has always been to screw over a consumer. Today you cannot return a game if you legitimately dislike it after playing (ridiculous considering some are $50+). You also legally cannot make a backup copy and use that to keep the original safe 5 year olds and optical discs? As if. And when they get ruined, does the company give you a new copy when you send in your old one? Very few do. So 90% of the time you are stuck buying a new copy if you want to stay all legal.
To the companies involved: give us at least A) homebrew ability (and free development tools and full access to the console (that means you, Sony) for at the least non-commercial use), and B) backup ability (that includes PC games!).
and nobody's complaining.
Haha that would never happen in an all-Atheist society.
That MS would surely get in trouble for this, but MS could very well use a repository, along with MD5 hashes of recommended programs.
They could provide what we Linux users have with Synaptic and dpkg. They could provide "MS Legit Software", "Driver Repository", "3rd party Software", and "GPL and derivatives". There's 6 branches of Windows to do right now (98, ME, 2k, XP, 03 server, Vista), and most of them are rather outdated.
I hate Windows but I'd love to see this in practise. The thing is, if Microsoft will not do it (no Windows Update is not the answer), then who will? Someone very generous in my opinion. Say hypothetically someone ports Synaptic or some kind of 'simple GUI-based' package manager for Windows for free software, and this can become an outlet for proprietary software as well. There is Steam, but that is games and only proprietary ones at that.
Windows and OS X desperately need package managers. OS X already has finch and portage (from Gentoo). Honestly, Apple and Microsoft should provide a way for software vendors to sell their software through a package manager as well. Apple has already set up a decent system for song distribution (iTunes), so why not extend it to software. iTunes has many free songs and non-free. A software package manager should have FOSS, freeware, shareware, and proprietary. For both shareware and proprietary, it should be as simple as enter appropriate information and a CC #, and the software is licensed and installed. Then, if you reinstall, you log in with your account for proprietary software and you can reinstall. No activation checks! Uninstallation is simple as well, just click the remove button in the package manager. If it was proprietary software you paid for, you can keep the license (for later reinstall or for another computer) or request your money back. There should not be 5 different package managers using 5 different standards. Just one open standard, anyone can choose what package manager they like best. Us 'admins' may prefer a command line package manager as opposed to a GUI one.
Does this spell the end of boxed software? I would like to think so and I do not care. As for software that 'has to be paid for', it should reduce cost of the software as well because no disc pressing, no box printing. With a package manager, the manual should come in CHM, PDF, or HTML (up to vendor) and be very easy to access.
It is at that stage where MS should set the standards for how software is to be written for Windows, regardless of licence. They can simply cut the software that is 'bad overall' or buggy out of the package manager. However, I almost wish they could have government-imposed non-bias for competing software like OpenOffice vs their own suite.
With Windows, many users simply do not know what is legitimate software and what is going to screw their system up, especially when the software is given a title such as 'AntiVirus XP 2008'. And where do you get software? A random web site. We now have the Internet, and the ability to verify files to make sure they are the correct ones (MD5, CRC, etc). Linux distros have realised the power of this and used it to its full advantage. Apple has done this with music. Valve has done it for PC games. Microsoft also has also sort of done it for music, but they both need to do the same for software.
Is it plausible that we could have OS's that have a package manager that manages EVERYTHING that we do not create? Say, it's no longer iTunes. It iComputer and you have audio tab (music, speech, audio books, etc), books tab, image sets (the porn industry would love this I'm sure, but also images for wallpapers, etc), the software tab (ALL licenses, approved stable and non-stable but working software), and finally video (which again the porn industry will love, but so will the film industry). Will it be DRM'd? Some of it, yes, unfortunately, but it is a leap in comparison to what there is available on proprietary OS's now.
How many people at home really care? I have WPA (cannot enable WPA2 because one laptop does not support it for now) and a decently long password with capitals and numbers in not-so-predictable places. I still see a TON of open or WEP-encrypted neighbourhood wi-fis just driving around, especially when I was a 'on-site tech'. For the people I worked with I tried to explain the importance and used the extreme example of someone coming in, downloading child pornography, and then leaving. I certainly would never want that to happen to me. How do you claim non-fault when it is YOUR network?
Overall, consumers do not realise why it is important to enable AT LEAST WEP. It just makes it so the 'wardriver' has to do at least a little work. Besides, I have seen so many non-encrypted networks where even the administration for the router settings were not even touched. I could log in with the default user name and password and potentially change things and even disable Internet. The owner would probably not know what to do, and they think they are safe simply because of the neighbourhood they are in. I am not sure how people treat their wireless in a place like NYC (I imagine there are many more informed people on security than in the 'sticks' neighbourhoods like mine). WPA is not uncrackable, it is just harder to do so. Dictionary attack is pretty much guaranteed not to work if the consumer is smart enough to not make a word password.
Unfortunately for DS owners, Nintendo is in backwards world and still will not add WPA to their device (but that is another story).
Why not just code native code then? I know this involves things like actual memory management on your own, but I still don't see AutoCAD .NET or Lightwave .NET. My guess is they do not see any performance benefits even though they can do 'rapid development' with .NET unlike native C or C++.