Starforce forum hacked or bad joke?

[Nil Einne]

Advanced users should be allowed to disable or even remove this service, as it is not really a part of the protection.

BTW Welcome back Nerva! How was your vacation?

Exactly, any part the 'protection' which doesn't affect the efficacy if the 'protection' doesn't need to be there. If an advanced user wants to do this, then they should be allowed to do so.

For SF: If you are really worried that non-advanced users may inadvertly disable the service, then you should instead ASK the user first rather then assuming the user is stupid and doesn't know what they are doing. Indeed I believe you should always ASK* the user before installing services that may not be needed or wanted.

If for some reason you really think it's wrong to ask as a user before you try to take control of their computer unnecessarily, then you should make the protection check the registry for a key which if set will not attempt to re-install the service. Publish this key and then the advanced user can add this key to their registry if they have no desire for the protection removal service.

Saying that users should trust you is a little silly. For starters, a lot of companies with arguably better reputations then yours have done sillier things before. More importantly, it's missing the point. It's bad enough that we have to put up with protection but I accept that if users want to play a game and the company forces them to use these silly protections then that's the companies right. But unnecessary but compulsary components such as these should be optional. They could easily be buggy causing unnecessary problems for the user, they almost definitely increase startup time, they make computer management more complicated (what's this silly service on my computer? guess I'll have to google it), they carry the risk of the company or even a bad apple within the company screwing around with you etc

*To be fair, you're not the only company which seems to think you own the user's computer and install startup programs and services willy-nilly but that doesn't make it any more acceptable

P.S. Some of you may think I'm being to harsh but I think I'm just airing the views of a lot of people. I strongly dislike the installation of unnecessary (& unwanted) startup programs of any type and think so do a lot of people. Also although it may be clear I dislike protection systems and am distrustful of companies in general I do defend SF and other companies when people are being unfair or silly. For example, I always challenge people who suggest SF permanently damages hardware since I think it's rather unlikely and have yet to see any real evidence that it occurs. I do however believe the the SF drivers can have strong negative effects on the operability of systems and hardware even in completely inocous circumstances.

[Underheaven]

...

protection check the registry for a key which if set will not attempt to re-install the service. Publish this key and then the advanced user can add this key to their registry if they have no desire for the protection removal service.

I'd like to see an override 'opt-out' kind of registry key.

[Sabrehawk]

Oh well if it aint SF then its TAGES , protect cd 6+ etc etc
and they all behave like they own your frickin machine

And the best will be VISTA ...say goodbye to the illusion of
being the master of your own domain at home.

At least tages driver removal is as simple as can be and
neither driver install nor removal require a reboot.
(i dont know if there are dirty leftovers though)