[#rootworm]

news is a bit old, but still a good read:

Written by Matt Chapman
Tuesday, 26 June 2007

Microsoft’s plans to lure gamers onto Vista by making certain games work only on that operating system seems to have suffered a blow. Shadowrun and Halo 2 have both already been cracked by hacking and warez groups.

Patches have been released for both titles that allow Windows XP users running DirectX 10 to play them.

Hacking crew Razor1911 took the credit for breaking the Shadowrun coding so it runs using XP.

The procedure doesn’t seem to have been that complex – with the crack only needing to overwrite some files in the installation folder to work.

However, the cracks aren’t that unexpected given what some firms said at the time of the games’ release.

"First Microsoft claims that it was impossible to implement DirectX 10 compatibility on top of Windows XP,” wrote CEO Brian Thomason of reverse-engineering firm Falling Leaf Systems.

“And now it also wants us to believe that it couldn’t successfully launch two DirectX 9-based titles on XP either. We plan to expose both theories as patently false.”

Both of the titles had been released to take advantage of Microsoft’s online games service for PC gamers, which is similar to the Xbox Live service.

source: http://www.absolutegadget.com/news/games/f...070626-593.html
[i took the liberty of correcting the "Razer1911" typo]

[Woomera]

LoL when microsoft wants to learn that they cant make a CRACK-PROOF materials?

[ripken204]

ya last week when i found out that halo 2 was cracked for xp, i just grinned.
microsoft is just a POS for doing this to use and especially lying about it.
they purposely put a protection on their to only allow it to work with vista, knowing that it could also work with xp.

[DigeratiPrime]

Microsoft is getting desperate trying to force require Vista like this. It antagonizes me; at least these games were poor anyway.

[Thunderbolt 2864]

Serves Microsoft right. With hackers around, they can't prevent this from happening. Good for the hackers.

[XtremeMaC]

I hope ms works on another windows soon [better one prefered ],
sticking to my xp, hoping everyone will do the same..

[ripken204]

XtremeMaC, on Jul 4 2007, 05:32 PM, said:

I hope ms works on another windows soon [better one prefered ],
sticking to my xp, hoping everyone will do the same..

i'm not.. that's how i used to think until i actually installed vista. it is my main OS now and i definatly like it over xp.

[DigeratiPrime]

I cant seem to keep Vista on my pc for more than 1 hour before I format and put XP back on. I try it regularly when there is new drivers and hotfixes, probably "upgrade" by the time SP1 comes out.

[XtremeMaC]

sorry but i don't see why i should switch from a fast os to a slow one. I don't use much of newer components in vista. only thing i liked about it is that in services u can choose to delay some services so they don't start at start-up...
not playing games, so i don't care about dx10.
copying file from hdd 1 to hdd 2 is a lot slower than xp. one of my printer is not supported.

the os just came and everyone's talking about an sp1. how convinient is that?
i don't see how this vista better for newbies. even changing your wallpaper takes more clicks that b4.
vista sidebar? hate it.

ie7 wmp11 don't use.. office 2007.. hate the toolbars.. etc...

[Woomera]

XtremeMaC, on Jul 5 2007, 08:15 AM, said:

sorry but i don't see why i should switch from a fast os to a slow one. I don't use much of newer components in vista. only thing i liked about it is that in services u can choose to delay some services so they don't start at start-up...
not playing games, so i don't care about dx10.
copying file from hdd 1 to hdd 2 is a lot slower than xp. one of my printer is not supported.

the os just came and everyone's talking about an sp1. how convinient is that?
i don't see how this vista better for newbies. even changing your wallpaper takes more clicks that b4.
vista sidebar? hate it.

ie7 wmp11 don't use.. office 2007.. hate the toolbars.. etc...

Well it might be a little slower at first but dont you agree that xp is faster because there are so many tweaks and tips for it? i mean whenever i install an xp i spend more than 20 minutes changing the settings and disabling services... i guess if you learn all the tweaks and tips on vista youll be pleased with it.

The main reason i kept the vista installed was that I NEVER GOT ANY BLUE SCREEN in it.i used to get at least one error in xp whether it was a blue screen or file crashing issue but in vista i only had a minor problem with a nero plugin and that was it.everything works smooth in my vista

[XtremeMaC]

well xp is ages old and u've been using it. I don't get bsod on xp. sometimes driver issues end up with bsod, thats it.
i've used vlite and stopped services tweaks etc...

anyways ms will force us to use vista, so probably i'll have to switch to vista in a year or so..

[ripken204]

XtremeMaC, on Jul 5 2007, 12:45 AM, said:

sorry but i don't see why i should switch from a fast os to a slow one. I don't use much of newer components in vista. only thing i liked about it is that in services u can choose to delay some services so they don't start at start-up...
not playing games, so i don't care about dx10.
copying file from hdd 1 to hdd 2 is a lot slower than xp. one of my printer is not supported.

the os just came and everyone's talking about an sp1. how convinient is that?
i don't see how this vista better for newbies. even changing your wallpaper takes more clicks that b4.
vista sidebar? hate it.

ie7 wmp11 don't use.. office 2007.. hate the toolbars.. etc...

well do you use ie6 and wmp9/10? at first i hated office 2007 but after using it for a while i found it to be alot more user friendly, which was microsoft's goal for it. vista is actually faster when using windows explorer, for me at least.

Woomera, on Jul 5 2007, 04:44 AM, said:

The main reason i kept the vista installed was that I NEVER GOT ANY BLUE SCREEN in it.i used to get at least one error in xp whether it was a blue screen or file crashing issue but in vista i only had a minor problem with a nero plugin and that was it.everything works smooth in my vista

same here, no bsod's

[XtremeMaC]

don't use ie6 nor wmp 9/10/11
i like office 2007 but its not really compatible with older versions even though a document is saved in doc instead of docx.
this year i've had billions of problems. I write lab reports on my computer with word 2007 with doc format. set margins etc printable borders etc.
i save it to my flash take it to school do some adding. and all the margins gets messed up. do all this with 2003 and no problems at all.

and some other minor reasons..

[ripken204]

well you can install 2003 on vista..

[XtremeMaC]

yes i could but i dunno if my outlook pst file will be recognized by 2003 outlook. bc when i installed 2007 it converted the pst file..

[ripken204]

you can't save it as the older format?

[XtremeMaC]

haven't found a way to do that....

[ripken204]

lol, so why are you yelling at office 2007 then? just go to file, save as, then under the file type you just need to choose the older document type.

[XtremeMaC]

dude you got it wrong. I'm talking about outlook....
word: i choose the doc (older format) it changes some stuff. not 100% compatible with 2003 doc. [read my previous posts.]
outlook: 2007 converted my 2003 pst file. so i don't know if it will work on 2003 anymore.. There is NO save as in outlook........
anyways this has gone so far from the original subject...

This post has been edited by XtremeMaC: 07 July 2007 - 04:53 PM

[Legolash2o]

i think companies should concentrate on making the product better rather than spending time to make it crack proof or whatever, cos it will get cracked eventually and just becomes a waste of time...