:yep: :/\chop

If I were anti-SC I wouldn´t have cared about what he thinks and I certainly wouldn´t have called him that day the article on Tomshardware.com came out to calm things down. He accused me of threatening him on Subsim.com, then he hung up on me. I called him immediately after that and he didn´t pick up the phone. Then we had a non-hostile conversation via PM.

He gave me his phonenumber back in October, we talked for hours several times, also about private things. It raised my phone bills quite a bit, as I´m unimployed he offered to send me money to pay parts of my phone bill, which was really nice of him, but I don´t wanted the money. He considered me a friend and so did I, I´ve invited him to my home if he ever comes to Germany. All that does make me pretty pro-SC.

Being pro-Larry on a personal, private level doesn´t mean that I cannot ask questions here. If something seems questionable I try to find out more. If I get a satisfying reply, ok, if not, well, then I start to have doubts.

Time for a vote :hmm:

No worries dude, but some of your comments where getting out of order and contradicting previous ones.

As I have said before where possible we give full details on what we say, on some occassions our hands are tied as to what we can dislose.

THis can be because.

1. The information would be dangerous to release without a workaround being available.

2. A company/Comporation states something off the record and it would damage their business if we dislcosed what they said (That is alwaysa difficult one, where you have to weigh up the right so the organisations against that of the end users)


3. Technical areas where the information is vague, as an enigineer with many years experieince I am aware that we work on probabilites. As in ask any engineer "Do you do something because you are 100% certain or because on the balance of probabilities you think the issue may be something"? If they are honest they will admit its the balance of probabilities as most thigs are pure trial and error.

Quite simply, where software/hardware interaction is concerned it is not an exact science. THere are just to many variabled involved for it to be. Yes we work withint he constraints of hardware but at any one time anything up to 100,000+ things can clash. If they didn't us engineers would never get any work :)


So when dealing with software like SF. It does not take a genius to understand that Dennis is blatently lieing when he says there are no issues with Security Technoligies Software running in Ring 0.

Why do I keep coming back to Ring 0?

Wel quite simply whilst peeps are shouting about various Software conlicts and hardware failure, they fail to recognise that the most serious issue is this use of Ring 0.

Nobody with an ounce of sense will ever run anything in Ring 0 in this manner because the Security issues are well documented. As are the hardware/software conflicts. (That is without even looking at Security Technologies Software). It's beena proven fact for many years. As I have mentioned before this is why Microsoft spent so much time and money plugging the Ring 0 hole in the first place. (One thing you can be sure of Microsoft will not do anything unless they really have to, maybe now you will realise how serious this is)

Since Security Technologies where willing to lie about this, this made me dig deaper as to what was really going on.

1. Interference, monitoring and blocking of section of the ATAPI system.

2. Low level access to the drive, in many cases causing conflicts with firmware (For calibrating spin speed, data rates to verify genuine pressed media) a lot of drives wil not support this level of access.

3. Interference.. monitoring and blocking of the ATAPI filters section fo the registry.

4. The use of IDE streams to Block, SCSI and SATA data streams (THis causes hardware/software conflict).

5. Constant running blocking of Alcohol 120% daemon tools, Nero (Various modules), Loggers, decompilers etc.


If we talking about the latest £1500+ development platform software then I could understand this level of protection, but for a game that has shelf life of about 6 months. Its just overkill.

Now an interesting point, prior to SF technical problems related to bugs in the games. Now 96% of Technical problems end users have are relating to the DRM's such as SF.

One could argue, that developers where doing a better job in Hacking the code in the games hence the reduction in game related tech problems. However the report of tech problems remains the same level, the other 96% of an increase is on top of the normal tech issues.

As SC posted before, it is interesting that companies that have invested in such overkill type protection like SF have taken a large dip in their share values on the stock exchange.

This may be a coincidence or the use of SF, may be a last ditched attempt to claw back more money by organisations that are going under, either way it is an interesting observation. Of this correlation between SF and Stock share prices.

Are Ubisoft in financial difficulties?

Slightly off topic, but I guess my comment about "are Ubisoft in financial difficulties?" has struck a raw nerve somewhere.

This was what I was met by when I went to log into Ubisoft forums after my recent stint in hospital (Renal Colic, man i wouldn't wish that pain on anybody) Anyway gettting back to the matter at hand.

I created another account for the purposes of asking some of the moderators that I know, what the heck was going on.

A few seconds after I read the replies in which they where going to ask about I was greeted by this.




I did get onto their press office to find out what the heck was going on and why a Community Manager was making slanderous comments about NGH and R-Force. (Guess what they are all in Paris for the Weekend, as is the Senior Community Manager).

First they ban me, then apologise saying it was a technical error, now they ban me and make slanderous comments. I wonder what they will blame it on this time, since this is coming from a Community Manager, who will not name themsleves or why they are making slanderous comments.

As you can see here even peeps oposed to my arguments about SF have had some comments to say about this: http://forums.ubi.com/groupee/forums...031018114/p/11

They seem to think this is really out of order.

Are Ubisoft really that scared that they have to resort to slanderous comments?