27 Oct
2012
27 Oct
'12
8:12 p.m.
mine is longer then any Ive seen on various sites. Probably older. Need docs and s/w,
though what Ive downloaded may be appropriate. Anyone ever use their (discrete logic)
version with 8 inch drives?
27 Oct
27 Oct
8:18 p.m.
??
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 10:12 PM, Chris Tofu
<rampaginggreenhulk at yahoo.com>wrote:
mine is longer then any Ive seen on various sites. Probably older. Need
docs and s/w, though what Ive downloaded may be appropriate. Anyone ever
use their (discrete logic) version with 8 inch drives?
28 Oct
28 Oct
1:10 p.m.
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012, Chris Tofu wrote:
mine is longer then any Ive seen on various sites.
Probably older. Need
docs and s/w, though what Ive downloaded may be appropriate. Anyone ever
use their (discrete logic) version with 8 inch drives?
I can tell you the contents of the docs that came with it!
1) connect in inline in the cable between the disk controller and the
drive. It originally came with with a short cable with a 34 pin card edge
and 34 pin dual-inline connector. You could reverse that cable to connect
to your FDC and either connector of the board. Then your existing drive
cable connects to the other connector.
"Do all connections and anstallation with the computer turned off!"
Run the supplied software.
Although much more verbose, that was all that the documentation said.
It didn't even give the meaning of the jumper or switch that some models
had, labelled "Compaq/Other"
At one time, they permitted me access to a "secret" page of instructions
on how to program it. Several parts of that page did not match what was
done in their supplied software (disassembly). I have since seen that
page show up in a few places on the web.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
3:17 p.m.
On 10/28/2012 1:10 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
At one time, they permitted me access to a
"secret" page of instructions
on how to program it. Several parts of that page did not match what was
done in their supplied software (disassembly). I have since seen that
page show up in a few places on the web.
I didn't see this page at the time but
would have liked to.
If I recall didn't this board try to copy with a binary image approach?
I had a lot of protected media that played with the recording and if you
tried that the bit times got set all back to the same rate, and the
copies failed, even if copied by this board.
There was another program w/o hardware assist that would frequently beat
that method called copywrite (or such). I think the approach there was
to be sure that the total bits around each track was the same as the
original, which the copy2pc board didn't pay explicit attention to. I
think the assumption was if one did a binary copy of some sort that the
target would end up the same.
the place the copywrite board got screwed on was with a media (who made
it I forget) with a laser defect on a specific track. If the bits
defect time didn't match from the index hole to the defect, I know of
one software package that would fail. What it did was measure the bit
time up to the hole. Once it knew this they had allocated space after
the hole and attempted to write a sector from that bit position to the
end of the track. if that failed as it would with the special damaged
media at the correct spot, then they knew they had the correct failed
media, which was therefore genuine.
Unfortunately for the vendor if you copied the media, and used a write
protect on the media, you got the same result as their special media.
Quite a sport trying to create and defeat these schemes back then.
Jim
4:59 p.m.
New subject: Copy Protection (Was: anyone with an early Option Board?
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012, jim s wrote:
I didn't see this page at the time but would have
liked to.
If I recall didn't this board try to copy with a binary image approach?
A lot of their software did, but the board could have been used for most
flux transition based work. I played with TE a lot, but never bothered
to launch TC
There were other issues with the software.
the place the copywrite board got screwed on was with
a media (who made
it I forget) with a laser defect on a specific track. If the bits
defect time didn't match from the index hole to the defect, I know of
one software package that would fail. What it did was measure the bit
time up to the hole.
Some versions were even cruder! They would merely check to
make sure
that the scratrch was in the right sector. Clever piracy programs
could merely rearrange the sector sequence until they got the right sector.
SOME piracy programs just faked the error in software, after which
the lock programs started confirming inability to rewrite/reformat
the basd sector.
Once it knew this they had allocated space after
the hole and attempted to write a sector from that bit position to the
end of the track. if that failed as it would with the special damaged
media at the correct spot, then they knew they had the correct failed
media, which was therefore genuine.
That was Pro-Lock from Vault Corporation. The origianl design called
for a scratch made with a paper clip. But, to attract investors, the
paperclip was replaced with a LASER. "Laser fingerprint" sounded much
more impressive than "a bunch of kids in the back room scratching the
disks with paperclips".
Unfortunately for the vendor if you copied the media,
and used a write
protect on the media, you got the same result as their special media.
EASILY solved by checking WHAT KIND OF eror was produced!
Vault Corpse shot themselves in the foot with Heavy Artillery! !
I maintain that it was the biggest foot shoot in computer history!
WAY bigger than anything that Adam Osborn did!
They announced that their NEW AND IMPROVED version, "Pro-Lock PLUS",
when it detected a bogus disk would trash the hard drive! Within
hours of their announcement, the computer press started talking
about "over reaction", "false positives",
"irresponsibility", etc.
EVERY major customer who was using it discontinued. IMMEDIATELY.
MOST issued press releases saying that they had never used the
PLUS version and never would. Vault Corpse lost their entire
customer base INSTANTLY. They NEVER got a customer for it,
and never sold a single Pro-Lock PLUS. EVER. NOT ONE.
Nevertheless, word was out! For decades, less than completely
competent computer advice columnists would answer problems that
they didn't understand with stuff like, "maybe it's a virus!
or a copy protection program out of control!"
Quite a sport trying to create and defeat these
schemes back then.
Yes, it was!
I was never involved in it. Well, barely. My publisher
(May they Rot In Pieces) used copy protection.
Once I regained publication rights, I put a copy protection
on XenoCopy-PC, that removed itself as soon as the customer
supplied their name (displayed on the title page).
Since most people (other than columnists) don't PLAN to make
copies for their friends until later, MOST put their real names
in, and only a few Mickey Mouse's.
MAJOR TRADE SECRET: The protection consisted of changing the
first byte of the FAT!, THAT'S ALL!
so that DISKCOPY (and the install program) thought that it was
a single sided disk, and attempts to COPY the UNINSTALLED .EXE
failed.
Once INSTALL ran, it copied their name and checksum into the .EXE,
and changed that byte back.
When some people contemplated giving their friends copies,
they would hesitate because their name was irrevocably embedded
in the title page.
XenoCopy-PC (and damn near anything else) could copy the
uninstalled disk, but DISKCOPY could not.
Just for sport:
One of the flaws in CopyII was total reliance on the index hole.
If you created a disk without an index hole, it choked.
1) modify a drive to index off of the spindle, instead of the
index hole, and FORMAT the disk.
It now has an index hole in the wrong place! Depending on where,
THAT might be enough!
2) to create a disk without an index hole, flip it over! then
format with the modified drive.
But, somebody COULD punch a hole in the jacket, and have an
index hole, albeit possibly in the wrong place. SO, start
with a hard-sectored disk!
Now, if they punch a hole, they have too many index holes,
and CopyII chokes.
The result from these steps, if done, would create a disk
that CopyII couldn't touch, but that DISKCOPY would have
no problems making a usable copy from! If just for sport,
that's where we leave it!
If you actually WANT copy protection for some godawful reason,
then add something trivial to stop DISKCOPY and the like.
What was even more fun was to create a multi-format (read-only?)
5.25" distribution disk format! Since disk formats use a lot of
different locations for the DIRectory, it was possible to put
half a dozen different DIRectories at different, appropriate
locations on the same disk, each pointing to it's own appropriate file.
Since the file had to be written on some tracks in 256 byte sectors,
on some as 512 byte, and some as 1024 byte, you could only use about
a quarter of the disk capacity. (You can ask David Dunfield why 128
byte wasn't one of my choices!) Coco and TRS80 were mutually
exclusive (pick only one!) due to all having their DIRectory
on track 17, but Apple][ cou8ld use part of the backside, since it
wasn't reliant on an index hole. But CP/M DIRectories on tracks 1,2,3,
with mixed sector sizes on those tracks, relying on the OS stopping
as soon as it had found the desired file directory entry on the first
of its sectors, and therefore not needing the entire track.
Could even flip the disk for another group of DIRectory tracks,
AND you could have Apple][ on the backside of the disk and TRS80
on the front.
It didn't even need to be a single sided MS-DOS or other formats,
as long as you avoided using any of the tracks that you used on
the backside for Apple][ or any other "backside" formats.
No expected longevity for its usefulness, since distribution on
multiple CP/M formats was already doomed. (As Dysan found out
when they bet the company on 3.25")
On 3.5", MS-DOS and early Mac can't EASILY co-exist, but there are some
further tricks.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
5:25 p.m.
New subject: Copy Protection (Was: anyone with an early Option Board?
On 10/28/2012 4:59 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012, jim s wrote:
You remembered the company for sure. I think my mob were probably one
of their
customers that kept buying media till the bitter end because they only
used the media,
and did nothing with the rest of Vault's technology. Never used any
other versions. of
the technology.
The other two problems for the company in question I was referring to
were that they had
some compartmentalization of the coding, so you had a fairly talented
clever programmer doing
the low level work on the mechanism to create and check the protection
scheme. and that
part of the code.
Once that work was done, they had others in the group incorporate it
into the system
installation and operational code, and guess what. There was a single
place in the entire
OS that called this, and if it called the code to do the check it
printed a message and did
a halt and catch fire... or a return to the caller.
Can you guess how hard removing the entire mess was... find the message,
and put in a
0xC3 in the correct spot.
I was working as a contractor for them at the time, and I was summonsed
to the main
office at one time to talk to the head of the company. I was asked if
copies could be made
and I told him yes. And told him copy-ii pc and copywrite were two
possibles. No one had
ever thought to assign anyone to do a clean room or any other attempt to
attack their own
scheme.
Thanks for the reply, Fred, very good reading.
Jim
I didn't see this page at the time but would
have liked to.
If I recall didn't this board try to copy with a binary image approach?
A lot
of their software did, but the board could have been used for most
flux transition based work. I played with TE a lot, but never bothered
to launch TC
There were other issues with the software.
the place the copywrite board got screwed on was
with a media (who made
it I forget) with a laser defect on a specific track. If the bits
defect time didn't match from the index hole to the defect, I know of
one software package that would fail. What it did was measure the bit
time up to the hole.
Some versions were even cruder! They would merely check to
make sure
that the scratrch was in the right sector. Clever piracy programs
could merely rearrange the sector sequence until they got the right sector.
SOME piracy programs just faked the error in software, after which
the lock programs started confirming inability to rewrite/reformat
the basd sector.
Once it knew this they had allocated space after
the hole and attempted to write a sector from that bit position to the
end of the track. if that failed as it would with the special damaged
media at the correct spot, then they knew they had the correct failed
media, which was therefore genuine.
That was Pro-Lock from Vault Corporation. The
origianl design called
for a scratch made with a paper clip. But, to attract investors, the
paperclip was replaced with a LASER. "Laser fingerprint" sounded much
more impressive than "a bunch of kids in the back room scratching the
disks with paperclips".
Unfortunately for the vendor if you copied the
media, and used a write
protect on the media, you got the same result as their special media.
EASILY
solved by checking WHAT KIND OF eror was produced!
Vault Corpse shot themselves in the foot with Heavy Artillery! !
I maintain that it was the biggest foot shoot in computer history!
WAY bigger than anything that Adam Osborn did!
They announced that their NEW AND IMPROVED version, "Pro-Lock PLUS",
when it detected a bogus disk would trash the hard drive! Within
hours of their announcement, the computer press started talking
about "over reaction", "false positives",
"irresponsibility", etc.
EVERY major customer who was using it discontinued. IMMEDIATELY.
MOST issued press releases saying that they had never used the
PLUS version and never would. Vault Corpse lost their entire
customer base INSTANTLY. They NEVER got a customer for it,
and never sold a single Pro-Lock PLUS. EVER. NOT ONE.
Nevertheless, word was out! For decades, less than completely
competent computer advice columnists would answer problems that
they didn't understand with stuff like, "maybe it's a virus!
or a copy protection program out of control!"
Quite a sport trying to create and defeat these
schemes back then.
Yes, it was!
I was never involved in it. Well, barely. My publisher
(May they Rot In Pieces) used copy protection.
Once I regained publication rights, I put a copy protection
on XenoCopy-PC, that removed itself as soon as the customer
supplied their name (displayed on the title page).
Since most people (other than columnists) don't PLAN to make
copies for their friends until later, MOST put their real names
in, and only a few Mickey Mouse's.
MAJOR TRADE SECRET: The protection consisted of changing the
first byte of the FAT!, THAT'S ALL!
so that DISKCOPY (and the install program) thought that it was
a single sided disk, and attempts to COPY the UNINSTALLED .EXE
failed.
Once INSTALL ran, it copied their name and checksum into the .EXE,
and changed that byte back.
When some people contemplated giving their friends copies,
they would hesitate because their name was irrevocably embedded
in the title page.
XenoCopy-PC (and damn near anything else) could copy the
uninstalled disk, but DISKCOPY could not.
Just for sport:
One of the flaws in CopyII was total reliance on the index hole.
If you created a disk without an index hole, it choked.
1) modify a drive to index off of the spindle, instead of the
index hole, and FORMAT the disk.
It now has an index hole in the wrong place! Depending on where,
THAT might be enough!
2) to create a disk without an index hole, flip it over! then
format with the modified drive.
But, somebody COULD punch a hole in the jacket, and have an
index hole, albeit possibly in the wrong place. SO, start
with a hard-sectored disk!
Now, if they punch a hole, they have too many index holes,
and CopyII chokes.
The result from these steps, if done, would create a disk
that CopyII couldn't touch, but that DISKCOPY would have
no problems making a usable copy from! If just for sport,
that's where we leave it!
If you actually WANT copy protection for some godawful reason,
then add something trivial to stop DISKCOPY and the like.
What was even more fun was to create a multi-format (read-only?)
5.25" distribution disk format! Since disk formats use a lot of
different locations for the DIRectory, it was possible to put
half a dozen different DIRectories at different, appropriate
locations on the same disk, each pointing to it's own appropriate file.
Since the file had to be written on some tracks in 256 byte sectors,
on some as 512 byte, and some as 1024 byte, you could only use about
a quarter of the disk capacity. (You can ask David Dunfield why 128
byte wasn't one of my choices!) Coco and TRS80 were mutually
exclusive (pick only one!) due to all having their DIRectory
on track 17, but Apple][ cou8ld use part of the backside, since it
wasn't reliant on an index hole. But CP/M DIRectories on tracks 1,2,3,
with mixed sector sizes on those tracks, relying on the OS stopping
as soon as it had found the desired file directory entry on the first
of its sectors, and therefore not needing the entire track.
Could even flip the disk for another group of DIRectory tracks,
AND you could have Apple][ on the backside of the disk and TRS80
on the front.
It didn't even need to be a single sided MS-DOS or other formats,
as long as you avoided using any of the tracks that you used on
the backside for Apple][ or any other "backside" formats.
No expected longevity for its usefulness, since distribution on
multiple CP/M formats was already doomed. (As Dysan found out
when they bet the company on 3.25")
On 3.5", MS-DOS and early Mac can't EASILY co-exist, but there are some
further tricks.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
6:13 p.m.
New subject: Copy Protection (Was: anyone with an early Option Board?
copywrite was the best copier I saw for PC,and it had programs to remove laser hole checks
in some cases.
It always did a better job for me than option boards ever did.
PC copy protection was always a joke compared to stuff going on with the c64 in those
days.
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 16:59:37 -0700
From: cisin at xenosoft.com
To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
Subject: Copy Protection (Was: anyone with an early Option Board?
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012, jim s wrote:
I didn't see this page at the time but would
have liked to.
If I recall didn't this board try to copy with a binary image approach?
A lot of their software did, but the board could have been used for most
flux transition based work. I played with TE a lot, but never bothered
to launch TC
There were other issues with the software.
the place the copywrite board got screwed on was
with a media (who made
it I forget) with a laser defect on a specific track. If the bits
defect time didn't match from the index hole to the defect, I know of
one software package that would fail. What it did was measure the bit
time up to the hole.
Some versions were even cruder! They would merely check to
make sure
that the scratrch was in the right sector. Clever piracy programs
could merely rearrange the sector sequence until they got the right sector.
SOME piracy programs just faked the error in software, after which
the lock programs started confirming inability to rewrite/reformat
the basd sector.
Once it knew this they had allocated space after
the hole and attempted to write a sector from that bit position to the
end of the track. if that failed as it would with the special damaged
media at the correct spot, then they knew they had the correct failed
media, which was therefore genuine.
That was Pro-Lock from Vault Corporation. The origianl design called
for a scratch made with a paper clip. But, to attract investors, the
paperclip was replaced with a LASER. "Laser fingerprint" sounded much
more impressive than "a bunch of kids in the back room scratching the
disks with paperclips".
Unfortunately for the vendor if you copied the
media, and used a write
protect on the media, you got the same result as their special media.
EASILY solved by checking WHAT KIND OF eror was produced!
Vault Corpse shot themselves in the foot with Heavy Artillery! !
I maintain that it was the biggest foot shoot in computer history!
WAY bigger than anything that Adam Osborn did!
They announced that their NEW AND IMPROVED version, "Pro-Lock PLUS",
when it detected a bogus disk would trash the hard drive! Within
hours of their announcement, the computer press started talking
about "over reaction", "false positives",
"irresponsibility", etc.
EVERY major customer who was using it discontinued. IMMEDIATELY.
MOST issued press releases saying that they had never used the
PLUS version and never would. Vault Corpse lost their entire
customer base INSTANTLY. They NEVER got a customer for it,
and never sold a single Pro-Lock PLUS. EVER. NOT ONE.
Nevertheless, word was out! For decades, less than completely
competent computer advice columnists would answer problems that
they didn't understand with stuff like, "maybe it's a virus!
or a copy protection program out of control!"
Quite a sport trying to create and defeat these
schemes back then.
Yes, it was!
I was never involved in it. Well, barely. My publisher
(May they Rot In Pieces) used copy protection.
Once I regained publication rights, I put a copy protection
on XenoCopy-PC, that removed itself as soon as the customer
supplied their name (displayed on the title page).
Since most people (other than columnists) don't PLAN to make
copies for their friends until later, MOST put their real names
in, and only a few Mickey Mouse's.
MAJOR TRADE SECRET: The protection consisted of changing the
first byte of the FAT!, THAT'S ALL!
so that DISKCOPY (and the install program) thought that it was
a single sided disk, and attempts to COPY the UNINSTALLED .EXE
failed.
Once INSTALL ran, it copied their name and checksum into the .EXE,
and changed that byte back.
When some people contemplated giving their friends copies,
they would hesitate because their name was irrevocably embedded
in the title page.
XenoCopy-PC (and damn near anything else) could copy the
uninstalled disk, but DISKCOPY could not.
Just for sport:
One of the flaws in CopyII was total reliance on the index hole.
If you created a disk without an index hole, it choked.
1) modify a drive to index off of the spindle, instead of the
index hole, and FORMAT the disk.
It now has an index hole in the wrong place! Depending on where,
THAT might be enough!
2) to create a disk without an index hole, flip it over! then
format with the modified drive.
But, somebody COULD punch a hole in the jacket, and have an
index hole, albeit possibly in the wrong place. SO, start
with a hard-sectored disk!
Now, if they punch a hole, they have too many index holes,
and CopyII chokes.
The result from these steps, if done, would create a disk
that CopyII couldn't touch, but that DISKCOPY would have
no problems making a usable copy from! If just for sport,
that's where we leave it!
If you actually WANT copy protection for some godawful reason,
then add something trivial to stop DISKCOPY and the like.
What was even more fun was to create a multi-format (read-only?)
5.25" distribution disk format! Since disk formats use a lot of
different locations for the DIRectory, it was possible to put
half a dozen different DIRectories at different, appropriate
locations on the same disk, each pointing to it's own appropriate file.
Since the file had to be written on some tracks in 256 byte sectors,
on some as 512 byte, and some as 1024 byte, you could only use about
a quarter of the disk capacity. (You can ask David Dunfield why 128
byte wasn't one of my choices!) Coco and TRS80 were mutually
exclusive (pick only one!) due to all having their DIRectory
on track 17, but Apple][ cou8ld use part of the backside, since it
wasn't reliant on an index hole. But CP/M DIRectories on tracks 1,2,3,
with mixed sector sizes on those tracks, relying on the OS stopping
as soon as it had found the desired file directory entry on the first
of its sectors, and therefore not needing the entire track.
Could even flip the disk for another group of DIRectory tracks,
AND you could have Apple][ on the backside of the disk and TRS80
on the front.
It didn't even need to be a single sided MS-DOS or other formats,
as long as you avoided using any of the tracks that you used on
the backside for Apple][ or any other "backside" formats.
No expected longevity for its usefulness, since distribution on
multiple CP/M formats was already doomed. (As Dysan found out
when they bet the company on 3.25")
On 3.5", MS-DOS and early Mac can't EASILY co-exist, but there are some
further tricks.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
7:23 p.m.
New subject: Copy Protection (Was: anyone with an early Option Board?
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012, Dan Gahlinger wrote:
copywrite was the best copier I saw for PC,and it had
programs to remove
laser hole checks in some cases.
It always did a better job for me than option boards ever did.
PC copy protection was always a joke compared to stuff going on with the
c64 in those days.
At Ft. Meade, they dealt with copy protection that was way beyond anything
possible on a home computer.
If what you want to do0 is to make unauthorized copies of copy-protected
diskettes, then an option board might be useful, but not as easy as a
program written for the specific purpose of removing the copy-protection
subroutine on that particular disk. Comparing an option board V dedicated
Pro-lock removal is like comparing your hammer with your screwdriver.
If you don't give a shit about copy-protection, then those programs are
useless and silly.
But, a "flux transition" board can be used for things that WE care about,
such as examining GCR diskettes with a PC, and correcting, NOT JUST
IGNORING, parity errors, including those that cause "sector not found"
errors (assuming that some of the content of that sector is actually
still around)
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
29 Oct
29 Oct
7:51 a.m.
New subject: Copy Protection (Was: anyone with an early Option Board?
the age-old argument. :)It wasn't about piracy, it was about making legal backups of
stuff you owned.some of the copy protection could actually damage your equipment over
time.
technically you should duplicate all the protection and stuff.sometimes if your drive was
out a bit, or something, the stuff wouldn't work.
for most consumers, it just has to work.
there were worse copy protections than laser burns.
there was nothing really equivalent to v-max c64 copy protection on PC.unmodified drives
were incapable of writing the data back the way it was written.
but then a PC drive can't compare to a 1541, PC drives are dumb devices
Dan.
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 19:23:01 -0700
From: cisin at xenosoft.com
To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
Subject: RE: Copy Protection (Was: anyone with an early Option Board?
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012, Dan Gahlinger wrote:
copywrite was the best copier I saw for PC,and it
had programs to remove
laser hole checks in some cases.
It always did a better job for me than option boards ever did.
PC copy protection was always a joke compared to stuff going on with the
c64 in those days.
At Ft. Meade, they dealt with copy protection that was way beyond anything
possible on a home computer.
If what you want to do0 is to make unauthorized copies of copy-protected
diskettes, then an option board might be useful, but not as easy as a
program written for the specific purpose of removing the copy-protection
subroutine on that particular disk. Comparing an option board V dedicated
Pro-lock removal is like comparing your hammer with your screwdriver.
If you don't give a shit about copy-protection, then those programs are
useless and silly.
But, a "flux transition" board can be used for things that WE care about,
such as examining GCR diskettes with a PC, and correcting, NOT JUST
IGNORING, parity errors, including those that cause "sector not found"
errors (assuming that some of the content of that sector is actually
still around)
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
10:54 a.m.
New subject: Copy Protection (Was: anyone with an early Option Board?
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012, Dan Gahlinger wrote:
the age-old argument. :)It wasn't about piracy, it
was about making
legal backups of stuff you owned.
We really don't give a shit about whether or not there is justification
for making the unauthorized copies. We ASSUME that there is a valid
ethical legitimate reason.
The question HERE is the technology, not anybody's personal excuses or
rationalizations.
some of the copy protection could actually damage your
equipment over
time.
THAT calls for more detail.
Or is merely an EXCUSE? (Such as "maybe Pro-lock PLUS really was secretly
put into production??")
technically you should
duplicate all the protection and stuff.sometimes if your drive was out a
bit, or something, the stuff wouldn't work. for most consumers, it just
has to work.
So?
We don't need lectures about WHY copy protection needs to be defeated.
THAT is assumed.
But, it would be easier to just defenestrate them, or wait for them to
suicide like Vault Corpse did.
there were worse copy protections than laser burns.
WHY BOTHER?
there
was nothing really equivalent to v-max c64 copy protection on
PC.unmodified drives were incapable of writing the data back the way it
was written.
Yeah. A modified drive can write stuf that a consumer drive can not.
Then, IF the consumer drive (with special software) can tell the
difference, then you have a copy protection scheme.
but then a PC drive can't compare to a 1541, PC
drives are
dumb devices Dan.
Oh yeah. But I can do things with an Apple][ drive that you
can't do with
a 1541. Hell, I can do things on a PC that you can't do with a 1541!
A dumb device is much more versatile than one with its own controller
built hardwired in the box.
11:35 a.m.
New subject: Copy Protection (Was: anyone with an early Option Board?
We really don't give a shit about whether or not
there is justification
for making the unauthorized copies. We ASSUME that there is a valid
ethical legitimate reason.
The question HERE is the technology, not anybody's personal excuses or
rationalizations.
there's nothing illegal about making copies of software you own,at least, not where I
live...
Or is merely an EXCUSE? (Such as "maybe Pro-lock
PLUS really was secretly
put into production??")
no, this has been documented in a few cases.like the protection fails they wipe your data,
that has happened also.
So?
We don't need lectures about WHY copy protection needs to be defeated.
THAT is assumed.
But, it would be easier to just defenestrate them, or wait for them to
suicide like Vault Corpse did.
I wish it would happen to all of them
Oh yeah. But I can do things with an Apple][ drive
that you can't do with
a 1541. Hell, I can do things on a PC that you can't do with a 1541!
A dumb device is much more versatile than one with its own controller
built hardwired in the box.
by adding a controller to the drive I guess :)if you can make your PC drive without any
hardware mods sing "daisy"I'll believe you.
Dan.
1:30 p.m.
New subject: Copy Protection (Was: anyone with an early Option Board?
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012, Dan Gahlinger wrote:
citation! There has been a lot of FOAF crap about that, BLAMING the copy
protection for any unexplained problems that ocurred. THIS group is
technical enough to deal with HOW did it damge the data?
That much, we agree on.
When you can make a 1541 read MFM, then I'll believe you.
Which is more important to YOU to accomplish?
With altering the controller, NOT THE DRIVE, I can read FM, MFM, GCR
easily with the PC drive. I don't have the ability to use a different
controller in a 1541. (Although some OTHER drives that could be
connected to a C64 were a little more versatile)
But separate controller and drive is more easily modified for OUR
purposes, such as a few jumpers on a 5150 FDC to use an 8" drive,
and nothing but cabling to connect an 8" drive to a 5170.
I happen to LIKE the way the C64 did disk I/O.
I spent some time with an IEEE-488 board and an MSR drive!
Different? Yes.
Good? Yes.
Better? Ford V Chevy.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
there's nothing illegal about making copies of
software you own,at
least, not where I live...
We really don't give a shit about whether or not there is justification
for making the unauthorized copies. We ASSUME that there is a valid
ethical legitimate reason.
The question HERE is the technology, not anybody's personal excuses or
rationalizations.
Do you not understand that I said "unauthorized"?; I did not say
"illegal"
THAT is not relevant to US. We really DON'T CARE.
We were/are discussing the Option board for its flux-transition
capabilities for looking at disks of other formats. We weren't,
other than mentioning how it was MARKETED, discusiing, nor interested
in its very impressive piracy capabilities, nor in ANY discussion of
why it is "justifiable"!
OTOH, discussion of the TECHNICAL aspects (NOT which programs could copy
them!) of HOW protection schemes were implemented can be interesting.
We discussed HOW "scratched disk" schemes, such as Pro-Lock's "Laser
fingerprint" were implemented.
Or is merely
an EXCUSE? (Such as "maybe Pro-lock PLUS really was secretly
put into production??")
no, this has been documented in a few cases.like the
protection fails
they wipe your data, that has happened also. But, it would
be easier to just defenestrate them, or wait for them to
suicide like Vault Corpse did.
I wish it would happen to all of them Oh yeah. But
I can do things with an Apple][ drive that you can't do with
a 1541. Hell, I can do things on a PC that you can't do with a 1541!
A dumb device is much more versatile than one with its own controller
built hardwired in the box.
by adding a controller to the drive I guess :)if you can make your PC
drive without any hardware mods sing "daisy"I'll believe you. 
1:44 p.m.
New subject: Copy Protection (Was: anyone with an early Option Board?
Do you not understand that I said
"unauthorized"?; I did not say
"illegal"
THAT is not relevant to US. We really DON'T CARE.
If your "THAT" is "illegal", then at least some of us _do_ care. I
for
one care whether a particular copy-making is legal or not.
Of course, just because something can be used to perform illegal
actions doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the thing, any more
than a hammer should be illegal just because you can bash out someone's
brains with it.
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
2:46 p.m.
New subject: Copy Protection (Was: anyone with an early Option Board?
> Do you not understand that I said
"unauthorized"?; I did not say
> "illegal"
> THAT is not relevant to US. We really DON'T CARE.
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012, Mouse wrote:
If your "THAT" is "illegal", then
at least some of us _do_ care. I for
one care whether a particular copy-making is legal or not.
Not quite/ "THAT" was arguments about legality/ethics of copy-protection.
We DO care, but don't want this list as a venue for an off-topic argument
that will NEVER end. "piracy" software and devices are necessary for
making legal unauthorized copies.
Of course, just because something can be used to
perform illegal
actions doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the thing, any more
than a hammer should be illegal just because you can bash out someone's
brains with it.
. . . or walk down the street at night carrying a pry-bar.
In the Sony V MGM(?) lawsuit, the court held that that technology could
not be barred ig it was "capableof sunbstantial noninfringing use". Even
though 99.99% of all VCR usage was making copies, a Betamax COULD be used
for home porno, birthdays, etc.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
11:35 a.m.
New subject: Copy Protection (Was: anyone with an early Option Board?
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012, Fred Cisin wrote:
Some copy protection methods on the Commodore 1541 drive knocked the head
repeatedly against a hard stop - over time this would knock the head out
of alignment.
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies.
ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_!
some of the
copy protection could actually damage your equipment over
time.
THAT calls for more detail.
4:49 p.m.
New subject: Copy Protection (Was: anyone with an early Option Board?
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012, geneb wrote:
Some copy protection methods on the Commodore 1541
drive knocked the head
repeatedly against a hard stop - over time this would knock the head out
of alignment.
Ah HA!
BREAK ITSELF under software command is something that is harder to do on a
PC drive. (Some drives are harder to break than some others! It was
relatively easy to get the cam follower out of place on an SA400/Apple
Disk][ )
30 Oct
30 Oct
5:36 a.m.
New subject: Copy Protection (Was: anyone with an early Option Board?
there was a "copier" for the c64 called "cruel copier" once upon a
time.
whatever you do, don't run it. it's not actually a copier.it's made up to look
like one, but it uses every trick in the book to utterly destroy your drive,even little
things like disabling the track check and so forth, telling the drive to seek to track
100,which the drive would happily try to do. occasionally making the drive sound like a
jet engine,also code from "daisy" and hordes of other things I don't think
anyone has actually looked into.
suffice it to say, it has been known to wreck drives, even with a single run.that is, if
you're stupid enough to actually run the damn thing - I wasn't, but there were
people who did.
it was put out by a fake company calling itself "magnetic manipulations
Inc",which I always thought was a cool name.
too bad they didn't do much productive releases,they're only decently useful
utility was called SDS (super disk speed) - a fast loader.or I suppose "soft sector
format" was another really cool one.
there were tons of these little groups/companies doing very cool things.
I wish I had gotten one of those "drive mirror" LED track/sector/density
displays....
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 16:49:30 -0700
From: cisin at xenosoft.com
To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
Subject: RE: Copy Protection (Was: anyone with an early Option Board?
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012, geneb wrote:
Some copy protection methods on the Commodore
1541 drive knocked the head
repeatedly against a hard stop - over time this would knock the head out
of alignment.
Ah HA!
BREAK ITSELF under software command is something that is harder to do on a
PC drive. (Some drives are harder to break than some others! It was
relatively easy to get the cam follower out of place on an SA400/Apple
Disk][ )
31 Oct
31 Oct
5:02 p.m.
New subject: Copy Protection (Was: anyone with an early Option Board?
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012, Dan Gahlinger wrote:
there was a "copier" for the c64 called
"cruel copier" once upon a time.
whatever you do, don't run it. it's not actually a copier.it's made up
to look like one, but it uses every trick in the book
Is the book available?
to utterly destroy
your drive,even little things like disabling the track check and so
forth, telling the drive to seek to track 100,which the drive would
happily try to do. occasionally making the drive sound like a jet
engine,also code from "daisy" and hordes of other things I don't think
anyone has actually looked into. suffice it to say, it has been known to
wreck drives, even with a single run.that is, if you're stupid enough to
actually run the damn thing - I wasn't, but there were people who did.
it was put out by a fake company calling itself "magnetic manipulations
Inc",which I always thought was a cool name. too bad they didn't do much
productive releases,they're only decently useful utility was called SDS
(super disk speed) - a fast loader.or I suppose "soft sector format" was
another really cool one. there were tons of these little
groups/companies doing very cool things.
Now that was more interesting. Do you have any more details about the
techniques used?
On most non-embedded "industry standard" drives, there is a SENSOR "track0
switch", to reduce the amount of cumulative damage from hitting the stop.
Some drives had an innermost track stop, but many did not.
But, did they do anything more interesting than seeking back and forth
between tracks?
I wish I had gotten one of those "drive
mirror" LED track/sector/density
displays....
What exactly was it?
Was it like the track display that Everex put on their case?
5:50 p.m.
New subject: GPIB/HPIB disk and device enulation for PC
I figured I would ask here before I spend hours chasing dead links in
google.
Is there a hpib/gpib device server emulator that works with linux or win XP?
I would like to get my HP 9000/340 to boot from a emulated drive.
If such a thing doesn't exist, I might try rolling my own from stuff I have
here.
-- jim
6:56 p.m.
New subject: GPIB/HPIB disk and device enulation for PC
On Oct 31, 2012 6:09 PM, "jim davis" <jimpdavis at gorge.net> wrote:
I figured I would ask here before I spend hours chasing dead links in
google.
Is there a hpib/gpib device server emulator that works with linux or win
XP?
I would like to get my HP 9000/340 to boot from a
emulated drive.
If such a thing doesn't exist, I might try rolling my own from stuff I
have
here.
http://www.hp9845.net/9845/projects/hpdrive/
I have used this software on a Windows XP system with a National
Instruments GPIB board to emulate drives attached to HP-85 series systems.
7:21 p.m.
New subject: GPIB/HPIB disk and device enulation for PC
On Wed, 31 Oct 2012, Glen Slick wrote:
On Oct 31, 2012 6:09 PM, "jim davis"
<jimpdavis at gorge.net> wrote:
I've also used HPDrive under WinXP to boot RTE-6/VM on a HP 21MX
(2109E).
Mike Loewen mloewen at cpumagic.scol.pa.us
Old Technology http://sturgeon.css.psu.edu/~mloewen/Oldtech/
Is there a hpib/gpib device server emulator that works with linux or win
XP?
I would like to get my HP 9000/340 to boot from a
emulated drive.
If such a thing doesn't exist, I might try rolling my own from stuff I
have
here.
http://www.hp9845.net/9845/projects/hpdrive/
I have used this software on a Windows XP system with a National
Instruments GPIB board to emulate drives attached to HP-85 series systems. 
1 Nov
1 Nov
2:31 a.m.
New subject: GPIB/HPIB disk and device enulation for PC
On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 17:50:07 -0700
"jim davis" <jimpdavis at gorge.net> wrote:
Is there a hpib/gpib device server emulator that works
with linux or win XP?
I would like to get my HP 9000/340 to boot from a emulated drive.
The 340 has no
SCSI? My 345 has SCSI and HPIB / GPIB build in. Only
one interface is routed to the outside as there is only space for one
connector on the back plate. Getting SCSI out of it is just a matter of
pluging in a ribbon cable and letting it hang out of the back.
--
\end{Jochen}
\ref{http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/}
31 Oct
31 Oct
6:24 p.m.
New subject: Copy Protection (Was: anyone with an early Option Board?
drive mirror was a LCD display with the track and sector also had LEDs for half-track and
density.
from my research, the ads were in transactor and such,
but apparently none ever made it to market,which is too bad, because it's a very cool
little thing for the 1541
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 17:02:25 -0700
From: cisin at xenosoft.com
To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
Subject: RE: Copy Protection (Was: anyone with an early Option Board?
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012, Dan Gahlinger wrote:
there was a "copier" for the c64 called
"cruel copier" once upon a time.
whatever you do, don't run it. it's not actually a copier.it's made up
to look like one, but it uses every trick in the book
Is the book available?
to utterly destroy
your drive,even little things like disabling the track check and so
forth, telling the drive to seek to track 100,which the drive would
happily try to do. occasionally making the drive sound like a jet
engine,also code from "daisy" and hordes of other things I don't think
anyone has actually looked into. suffice it to say, it has been known to
wreck drives, even with a single run.that is, if you're stupid enough to
actually run the damn thing - I wasn't, but there were people who did.
it was put out by a fake company calling itself "magnetic manipulations
Inc",which I always thought was a cool name. too bad they didn't do much
productive releases,they're only decently useful utility was called SDS
(super disk speed) - a fast loader.or I suppose "soft sector format" was
another really cool one. there were tons of these little
groups/companies doing very cool things.
Now that was more interesting. Do you have any more details about the
techniques used?
On most non-embedded "industry standard" drives, there is a SENSOR
"track0
switch", to reduce the amount of cumulative damage from hitting the stop.
Some drives had an innermost track stop, but many did not.
But, did they do anything more interesting than seeking back and forth
between tracks?
I wish I had gotten one of those "drive
mirror" LED track/sector/density
displays....
What exactly was it?
Was it like the track display that Everex put on their case?
7:05 p.m.
New subject: Copy Protection (Was: anyone with an early Option Board?
drive mirror was a LCD display with the track and
sector also had LEDs for
half-track and density.
from my research, the ads were in transactor and such, but apparently none
ever made it to market,which is too bad, because it's a very cool little
thing for the 1541
The Indus GT drive has such a display. Not as handy as you'd think because
the types of software it was most useful for weren't necessarily compatible
with the Indus GT.
--
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com
-- It is a tremendous Mitzvah to be happy always! -- Reb. Nachman -------------
1 Nov
1 Nov
1:52 a.m.
New subject: Copy Protection (Was: anyone with an early Option Board?
drive mirror was a LCD display with the track and
sector also had LEDs for
half-track and density.
from my research, the ads were in transactor and such, but apparently none
ever made it to market,which is too >bad, because it's a very cool little
thing for the 1541
If you know how a floppy works, you can make it with no time. Just CMOS
counters and you're set
4434
days inactive
4438
days old
24 comments
13 participants
participants (13)
-
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
dgahling＠hotmail.com -
geneb＠deltasoft.com -
glen.slick＠gmail.com -
jimpdavis＠gorge.net -
jkunz＠unixag-kl.fh-kl.de -
jws＠jwsss.com -
mloewen＠cpumagic.scol.pa.us -
mouse＠Rodents-Montreal.ORG -
pu1bzz.listas＠gmail.com -
rampaginggreenhulk＠yahoo.com -
spectre＠floodgap.com -
tdk.knight＠gmail.com