rrs@neabbs.UUCP (RONALD VAN EIJCK) (06/05/90)
After reading so much messages about Games vs Multitasking here's my opinion.
Harddisks etc:
It isn't difficult to make a game harddisk installable, If let it start
from workbench and get your cd from the icon it runs from any device,
dh0: work: df1: etc. etc.
RAM:
1: don't destroy the system and ASK!!! for the memory you need.
2: Try to keep the data in ram. If you need a data area and you can't
allocate free the memory for the title screen or some other unimportant
part of your data and reread it if you need it again. (people who have
lot's of ram don't have to wait, people who have little ram do.)
Processors:
If you don't do busy loops and you don't use the dangerous instructions
processors are the least of your worries.
Multitasking:
Don't destroy the system. I am not saying that you have to be able to run
dpain, sonix and whatsoever on the background but you should not disable
all dma and interrupts. Instead use the following:
1: Insert an input handler just before intuition (pri 51) and steal all
the input events while your game is running, nobody wants to give input
to an other task while playing an shoot-em-up game.
2: Give your task a priority of 1 (you can use a higher value if you have some
waits in your programm but be carefull.)
3: If you have a speed problem look at your algorithm instead of destroying
the system. (this'll cause me trouble)
Copy protection:
Don't use diskbased copyprotection:
1: I really want to have a backup of the programm's I buy.
2: Some hacker will write a copy program.
3: You can make copies so someone else can.
I am using dongle protection for my programs, the advantages are:
1: People can make backups.
2: It's impossible to use two copies of the program at the same time
3: It's more difficult to break hardware.
4: If someone breaks the hardware only a limited number of copies will be made
The only disadvantage is that if a lot of programs use them the users get mad.lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) (06/06/90)
In <398658@neabbs.UUCP>, rrs@neabbs.UUCP (RONALD VAN EIJCK) writes: > > I am using dongle protection for my programs, the advantages are: > 1: People can make backups. This is the only good thing about a dongle. > 2: It's impossible to use two copies of the program at the same time It also interferes with multitasking if the dongle conflicts with another dongled program or if the other program requires that port. > 3: It's more difficult to break hardware. It's very easy to break hardware by pluggin in/unplugging an active circuit. ake a look at the schematics one day, paying particular attention to where these things attach to the chips (8520, Paula, etc.). > 4: If someone breaks the hardware only a limited number of copies will be made > The only disadvantage is that if a lot of programs use them the users get mad. The main disadvantages are far more than you perceive. To top it all off, dongles are perhaps one of the easiest forms of protection to break, so you end up in the same boat as those who use disk based copy protection; pissing off the legitimate owners for little gain except your false sense of security. Bottom line.. I won't buy products that are protected, but if I had to make a choice between a dongle and any other form of protection, including disk copy protection, I would NOT choose the dongle. -larry -- The raytracer of justice recurses slowly, but it renders exceedingly fine. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
pezen@elin.bula.se (Johan Pettersson) (06/07/90)
In article <398658@neabbs.UUCP> rrs@neabbs.UUCP (RONALD VAN EIJCK) writes: >After reading so much messages about Games vs Multitasking here's my opinion. [Lotsa stuff deleted] > >Copy protection: > Don't use diskbased copyprotection: > 1: I really want to have a backup of the programm's I buy. > 2: Some hacker will write a copy program. > 3: You can make copies so someone else can. > > I am using dongle protection for my programs, the advantages are: > 1: People can make backups. > 2: It's impossible to use two copies of the program at the same time > 3: It's more difficult to break hardware. > 4: If someone breaks the hardware only a limited number of copies will be made > The only disadvantage is that if a lot of programs use them the users get mad. I guess the subject dongles been up before but one question sure needs to be repeated: What happens when you want to run several programs which ALL uses dongle-protection? Possible answer: You don't. My opinion is that the best way to protect a program is through the manual. Either my making it so goddam good that noone can do without it. (Or make your program so complex that noone can use the program without it. :-) ) The simplest way is to use the "word-in-the-manual"-thing. It works! (Sure, people can copy the manuals but most people won't bother or don't have that possibility.) Such programs CAN be cracked and copied but isn't that better than software that cracks up your drives, itself or you? --- SnailMail: Johan Pettersson | EMail: pezen@elin.bula.se Fabelvagen 17, 7 | or sunic!sics!bula!elin!pezen S-175 70 Jarfalla | Voice: +46-758-57335 SWEDEN | ** ABSOLUT SVENSK **
ianr@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (Ian ROWLANDS) (06/08/90)
In article <1696@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca> lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) writes: > >Bottom line.. I won't buy products that are protected, (etc....) [stuff deleted, below and above this single line] Just a question for those people who don't buy copy-protected programs - do you actually own any commercial programs? :-) Ian Ian Rowlands | ianr@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (main) Dept. of Electrical Engineering, | ianr@gondwana.ecr.mu.oz.au (including Computer Science) | ianr@munmurra.cs.mu.oz.au (to 7/90) University of Melbourne | (How can you have a funny quote in only 4 li
<LEEK@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> (06/08/90)
In article <1696@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca>, lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) says: > >It's very easy to break hardware by pluggin in/unplugging an active circuit. >ake a look at the schematics one day, paying particular attention to where >these things attach to the chips (8520, Paula, etc.). Yeap. The other thing about the A500, A1000, A2000 is that these ports have virtually no protection against static electricity or short circuit. The pins goes directly into the chips without any clamping diodes and/or current limiting resistors. (Hope someone at C= do something about this in the future models.) The serial port is probably the only "safe" port to plug & unplug devices when the machine is on (if we ignored the other pins it also carries.) From a hardware point of view, I would say this form of software protection is a BIG NO-NO to do. Probably even worse if not on the same order of magnitude of potential damage to the user's machine with disk based portections. Expect a law suit from me if you did damage to my machine !! (The closest replacement is an A3000 in my case. :) > >-larry > >-- >The raytracer of justice recurses slowly, but it renders exceedingly fine. >+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ >| // Larry Phillips | >| \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | >| COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | >+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ K. C. Lee
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (06/09/90)
In article <4437@munnari.oz.au> ianr@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Ian ROWLANDS) writes: >In article <1696@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca> lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) writes: >> >>Bottom line.. I won't buy products that are protected, (etc....) >[stuff deleted, below and above this single line] > > Just a question for those people who don't buy copy-protected >programs - do you actually own any commercial programs? :-) > While I haven't reached Larry's point of disgust yet, I _do_ own roughly 60 pieces of commercial Amiga software, and I find myself more and more often putting attractive games back on the shelf when I see that they are made by a company whose copy protection schemes cause me intense irritation. Psygnosis comes immediately to mind -- flashy graphics, but floppy drive killers; I've bought my last game from them that doesn't say "not copy protected" on the box. Electronic Arts is right on the border now, with their nearly unreadable by 46 year old eyes keyword copy protection code sheets, printed black on dark purple in small type, and their count colors off a map copy protection scheme, unusable by the 10% of the male population that is partially color blind. Does anyone there actually ever bother to _think_? Kent, the man from xanth. <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us>
new@udel.EDU (Darren New) (06/09/90)
In article <90159.131952LEEK@QUCDN.BITNET> LEEK@QUCDN.QueensU.CA writes: >The serial port is probably the only "safe" port >to plug & unplug devices when the machine is on I thought the keyboard at least was also "safe". I remember reading about all the nifty stuff to make sure that the amiga does not get spurious (sp?) characters when the keyboard is plugged in out pulled out. Also, what about the game ports (aka mouse ports)? Can I do damage to the Amiga by plugging or unplugging unpowered devices (mice, sticks,...) to these ports while the power is on? -- Darren
LEEK@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (06/10/90)
In article <21524@estelle.udel.EDU>, new@udel.EDU (Darren New) says: > >In article <90159.131952LEEK@QUCDN.BITNET> LEEK@QUCDN.QueensU.CA writes: >>The serial port is probably the only "safe" port >>to plug & unplug devices when the machine is on I said that because the output chip 1488 have some form of current limiting while the input chip 1489 can handle +/- 30V inputs. For most conditions, they are almost indestructive. (I've them blowing up on a 68HC11 Evaluation Board - but that shouldn't happen in the Amiga) > >I thought the keyboard at least was also "safe". I remember reading >about all the nifty stuff to make sure that the amiga does not get >spurious (sp?) characters when the keyboard is plugged in out pulled >out. The keyboard connector is safe in the sense that it is very unlikely to get junk characters when you connect/disconnect it. Electrically, it is unsafe. The keyboard plug goes directly into 8520 PIA chip with no protection circuits. I remember reading the BIX stuff in the early days about people with non-Commodore keyboard cable burning chip(s) in their keyboards. This happens because they short circuited the pins on the A1000 keyboard plug. The only improvement in the keyboard interface in the B2000 seems to be the 0.5A fuse and a different plug. The fuse is there to limit the damage. I don't know whether or not it is good enough to prevent damages for/from non-Commodore approved devices. > >Also, what about the game ports (aka mouse ports)? Can I do damage to >the Amiga by plugging or unplugging unpowered devices (mice, sticks,...) >to these ports while the power is on? Let's see. The +5V source from the game port has some current limiting on A1000, A500 (can't tell from A2000 schematic), the POT0X, POT0Y, POT1X, POT1Y goes directly into Paula again without protection. If the device you plug in is a joystick/mouse, I think they are probably safe. I can't tell what would happen for non-Commodore approved devices such as a dongle. Last time I check, Paula was about $60 and 8520 was about $15 a piece. Both of them are not user installable. The replacement labour cost might range from $25 to $50. That's the reason why I say I would sue any copy protection that damage my machine. (about 3 times already). > -- Darren // [\X/] for multitasking games (Amiga juggling tiny BOING! balls) for OS environment friendly products (Mult-colour check mark) [ X ] for dongle protection, disk base (grind-grind) protection, games that takes over the machine (Wipe-outs)
LEEK@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (06/10/90)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: games & multitasking Organization: Queen's University at Kingston Date: Saturday, 9 Jun 1990 14:51:28 EDT From: <LEEK@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Message-ID: <90160.145128LEEK@QUCDN.BITNET> References: <1696@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca> <90159.131952LEEK@QUCDN.BITNET> <21524@estelle.udel.EDU> In article <21524@estelle.udel.EDU>, new@udel.EDU (Darren New) says: > >In article <90159.131952LEEK@QUCDN.BITNET> LEEK@QUCDN.QueensU.CA writes: >>The serial port is probably the only "safe" port >>to plug & unplug devices when the machine is on I said that because the output chip 1488 have some form of current limiting while the input chip 1489 can handle +/- 30V inputs. For most conditions, they are almost indestructive. (I've them blowing up on a 68HC11 Evaluation Board - but that shouldn't happen in the Amiga) > >I thought the keyboard at least was also "safe". I remember reading >about all the nifty stuff to make sure that the amiga does not get >spurious (sp?) characters when the keyboard is plugged in out pulled >out. The keyboard connector is safe in the sense that it is very unlikely to get junk characters when you connect/disconnect it. Electrically, it is unsafe. The keyboard plug goes directly into 8520 PIA chip with no protection circuits. I remember reading the BIX stuff in the early days about people with non-Commodore keyboard cable burning chip(s) in their keyboards. This happens because they short circuited the pins on the A1000 keyboard plug. The only improvement in the keyboard interface in the B2000 seems to be the 0.5A fuse and a different plug. The fuse is there to limit the damage. I don't know whether or not it is good enough to prevent damages for/from non-Commodore approved devices. > >Also, what about the game ports (aka mouse ports)? Can I do damage to >the Amiga by plugging or unplugging unpowered devices (mice, sticks,...) >to these ports while the power is on? Let's see. The +5V source from the game port has some current limiting on A1000, A500 (can't tell from A2000 schematic), the POT0X, POT0Y, POT1X, POT1Y goes directly into Paula again without protection. If the device you plug in is a joystick/mouse, I think they are probably safe. I can't tell what would happen for non-Commodore approved devices such as a dongle. Last time I check, Paula was about $60 and 8520 was about $15 a piece. Both of them are not user installable. The replacement labour cost might range from $25 to $50. That's the reason why I say I would sue any copy protection that damage my machine. (about 3 times already). > -- Darren // [\X/] for multitasking games (Amiga juggling tiny BOING! balls) for OS environment friendly products (Mult-colour check mark) [ X ] for dongle protection, disk base (grind-grind) protection, games that takes over the machine (Wipe-outs)
lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) (06/10/90)
In <90160.152619LEEK@QUCDN.BITNET>, LEEK@QUCDN.QueensU.CA writes: >In article <21524@estelle.udel.EDU>, new@udel.EDU (Darren New) says: >> >>In article <90159.131952LEEK@QUCDN.BITNET> LEEK@QUCDN.QueensU.CA writes: >>>The serial port is probably the only "safe" port >>>to plug & unplug devices when the machine is on > >I said that because the output chip 1488 have some form of current >limiting while the input chip 1489 can handle +/- 30V inputs. For >most conditions, they are almost indestructive. (I've them blowing >up on a 68HC11 Evaluation Board - but that shouldn't happen in the Amiga) I can tell you that it is definitely possible to blow a 1488 or 1489, because this klutz has done it. I slipped while plugging the cable into the modem, and shorted something with the shell of the connector. The 148x got real warm, real fast, and did so when I powered the machine on later. At least it was easy to find the problem. :-) -larry -- The raytracer of justice recurses slowly, but it renders exceedingly fine. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
<LEEK@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> (06/11/90)
In article <13000@netcom.UUCP>, mcmahan@netcom.UUCP (Dave Mc Mahan) says: > > In a previous article, LEEK@QUCDN.QueensU.CA writes: >>Last time I check, Paula was about $60 and 8520 was about $15 a piece. Both >>of them are not user installable. The replacement labour cost might range m >fro >>$25 to $50. That's the reason why I say I would sue any copy protection that >>damage my machine. (about 3 times already). > >I don't have first hand knowledge of Paula, but I paid $20 (plus tax) for the >8520 CIA and plugged it in myself. All I needed was a phillips head r >screwdrive >and the knowledge of which chip was CIA-A and which was CIA-B (there are two >8520 chips in the amiga, I only smoked one of them). It took about 15 >minutes. >I have an A2000. It seems that Paula would be about as simple to replace. >I did this replacement about 1 week ago. You should try replacing the 8520 on a 1000 (or a 500 ?) Taking off and replacing the shield alone in a 1000 takes 10 minutes. :) In any way, although I can do the replacement myself, I'll still bill labour cost if someone blew up a chip in my machine. > >By the way, blowing up the CIA chip was entirely my fault, and I take full >credit/responsibility for doing it. > > > -dave I blew a input pin on my CIA too. I managed to fix it up so I save $20. :) K. C. Lee
mcmahan@netcom.UUCP (Dave Mc Mahan) (06/11/90)
In a previous article, LEEK@QUCDN.QueensU.CA writes: >Last time I check, Paula was about $60 and 8520 was about $15 a piece. Both >of them are not user installable. The replacement labour cost might range from >$25 to $50. That's the reason why I say I would sue any copy protection that >damage my machine. (about 3 times already). I don't have first hand knowledge of Paula, but I paid $20 (plus tax) for the 8520 CIA and plugged it in myself. All I needed was a phillips head screwdriver and the knowledge of which chip was CIA-A and which was CIA-B (there are two 8520 chips in the amiga, I only smoked one of them). It took about 15 minutes. I have an A2000. It seems that Paula would be about as simple to replace. I did this replacement about 1 week ago. By the way, blowing up the CIA chip was entirely my fault, and I take full credit/responsibility for doing it. -dave
mark@isi.UUCP (Mark Bailey) (06/11/90)
In article <4437@munnari.oz.au>, ianr@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (Ian ROWLANDS) writes: > > Just a question for those people who don't buy copy-protected > programs - do you actually own any commercial programs? :-) Yes. Consider Lattice C, CityDesk, Word Perfect, ProWrite, ... Choice of games is a bit more limited. I consider code wheel/word in manual protection acceptable for them. -- Mark Bailey (I didn't really say this.) via: ...!uunet!pyrdc!isi!mark ------Have a 8-| day!!!!!
" Seaman) (06/11/90)
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: < >lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) writes: < >>Bottom line.. I won't buy products that are protected, (etc....) < < While I haven't reached Larry's point of disgust yet, I _do_ own roughly 60 < pieces of commercial Amiga software, and I find myself more and more often < putting attractive games back on the shelf when I see that they are made by < a company whose copy protection schemes cause me intense irritation. < < Psygnosis comes immediately to mind -- flashy graphics, but floppy drive < killers; I've bought my last game from them that doesn't say "not copy < protected" on the box. Ditto... < Electronic Arts is right on the border now, with their nearly unreadable by < 46 year old eyes keyword copy protection code sheets, printed black on dark < purple in small type, and their count colors off a map copy protection < scheme, unusable by the 10% of the male population that is partially color < blind. Does anyone there actually ever bother to _think_? Perhaps EA is starting to see the light. I just picked up (I almost put it back when I saw the EA sticker on the box) 'Tunnels of Armageddon', from California Dreams (distributed by EA). Not only is it hard disk installable, but it is NOT 'physically' copy protected (it uses an easy-to-read code wheel), it runs flawlessly on a 68020, and exits cleanly. The ONLY missing piece here is multitasking. While having mutitasking enabled during this game would be nice, I can appreciate why they disabled it. The game just doesn't let up :-). I'm not sure how much of this belongs in .tech any more, but I wanted to remind developers (and prospective developers) that you CAN 'do the right thing', and still make a quality product, and increase your sales. Kudos to California Dreams and EA for a fine game. -- Chris (Insert phrase here) Seaman | ___-/^\-___ qatul batlh. cseaman@sequent <or> | //__--\O/--__\\ qatul Huch. ...!uunet!sequent!cseaman | // \\ qatul roj. The Home of the Killer Smiley | `\ /'
cmcmanis@stpeter.Eng.Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (06/12/90)
And don't forget the LucasFilm games "BattleHawks 1942", and the recent one
"Their Finest Hour : Battle of Britain". These are both games that
are flight simulators, enter and exit cleanly to the workbench (BoB
moreso than BattleHawks) and are generally "fun" to play. No, they
don't hold a candle to Falcon or F/18 as flight simulators but they
are _more_ playable in some respects because the foundations are good.
Anyway, both are "word from the manual" type that avoid R/G colorblindness
(BH moreso than BoB) and I'd reccomend them to anyone who like historical
simulation/action games.
Now to make this a bit more TECHnical, allow me to add that the technique
used in BoB to achieve nice graphics was a hybrid polygon/bitmap approach.
Planes/ships have bitmaps associated with them but the "world" is 3D polygons.
It works well and if you build such games you might consider looking at
it.
--
--Chuck McManis Sun Microsystems
uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: <none> Internet: cmcmanis@Eng.Sun.COM
These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.
"I tell you this parrot is bleeding deceased!"