2 Dec
2005
2 Dec
'05
1:37 a.m.
Fred Cisin wrote:
No, I think what Chuck was remembering was how the copy protection library used
in the 1.0-era early versions of Lotus had code that would not function
properly on the faster AT (probably due to extremely tight FDC timing
routines). As a result, the copy protection check failed every single time :-)
That's only one specific instance -- Lotus was plagued by compatibility
problems from 1983 until 1987 (when they finally stopped using disk-based
protection), completely caused by their copy-protection schemes. I can
remember other flaps, such as offering the ability to "transfer" the protection
to the hard disk, only to have it blow away the boot+FAT on certain
disk/controller arrangements... or fixing the 8088 code to work on 286s, only
to have it break AGAIN on Compaq's new 386 Deskpro.
I remember that Lotus 1-2-3 was considered by some as a true test of IBM PC
compatibility: I knew people who would bring some version of Lotus with them
to Computerland or Radio Shack or wherever and if the machine they wanted to
buy didn't boot Lotus 1-2-3 they went elsewhere.
--
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Want to help an ambitious games project? http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
I'm
desperately trying to remember some details here..wasn't there a bit of
a flap with copy-protected Lotus 123 and one of IBM"s newer machines?
Maybe it was the PS/2 introduction, but that seems too late to me--it might
have been the PC-AT. At any rate, IBM found themselves in the position of
having to unofficially recommend one of the copy protection defeating
products to customers in order to get 123 to run on their new systems.
Anyone remember the exact details? It's too fuzzy in my memory...
possibly:
IBM provided a cable to transfer files/programs from 5.25" based PCs over
to 3.5" PS/2s. Many copy-protected programs would have to be unprotected
to be able to get the resulting 3.5" copy to work.