Software deprotection or full Kryoflux/IPF preservation?

[Keatah]

Software deprotection or full Kryoflux IPF/SPS preservation? Which do you prefer and why?

 

If you pick software deprotection, documentation, and conversion into a widely used format, you're embracing preservation in the finest. Think internet archive and other repositories. Think emulators, and the ability to transfer to a real machine via ADTpro or SD/CompactFlash. Think utilities that let you work with the information on the disk on a PC.

 

If you pick Kryoflux, you're getting tied into the IPF format and all kinds of non-support, no SD/CompactFlash interfaces, no support for ADTpro, and definitely no support for emulators. Not even PC utilities to read/write/edit the disk images for use on real hardware either. With all Kryoflux' hoops and technicalities, this isn't preservation at all. You're just pouring it into a different bottle. It's smaller than niche.

 

http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/5180

A comment about this..

Brandon says:

"This definitely should be a priority. However, I think that instead of cracking these titles, the copy protection should be preserved as well. The thing about copy protection is that it’s also historically relevant as much as the cracks that have been used to defeat them. An imaging solution such as the Kryoflux has the ability to preserve the media at the lowest level and defeat any known copy protection. The issue that may arise is that to play these games or run these applications, a format needs to exist to contain the lower level information that the copy protection routines look for. Since the Kryoflux is linked to the Software Preservation Society, they have come up with the IPF format for this reason. The shortcomings of this format is the lack of support in emulation due to incompatible licenses and the need for the Software Preservation Society to manually check each raw track dump and produce an IPF that preserves the relevant data. Even with these shortcomings, I think it’s the current best solution to preservation. I’m curious if this was known before hand."

 

Of course it was known before hand. That's why it isn't popular. The limitations are too much. If it was the better solution then it'd be widespread. And instead of the .DSK format we'd be jamming IPF. With IPF everything is ridiculous because it would be no more accessible than the original disks. Probably even less.

 

Preservation is not just preservation, it has to include accessibility, otherwise why bother saving something? Save it only for it to sit and rot and fade away?

 

The way that guy sounds is as if copy protection is more important than the information on the disk. So, again, why bother?

 

Good documentation of the deprotection process is better, because it sheds light on how it worked. Better than a bunch of disk-grinding noises! And interesting. Possibly even to the layperson.

 

I never cared much for IPF & SPS and Kryoflux. And the current state of affairs seems to prove it.

[GlowingGhoul]

Far too many instances of cracks resulting in programs not working instantly to dismiss full preservation.

 

Sooner or later, floppy emu's will be able to handle Kryoflux and Supercard Pro images, which will guarantee operation as the publisher intended, not someone's bedroom hacked version that may or may not work correctly.

[adolescent]

Archiving cracked games isn't preservation.

 

The problem with cracks is you never really know if they are 100%. Example 4am is finding secondary protection in simple Apple II games cracked with passport.

 

SPS checks IPFs to ensure the original disks were not modified. There's no reason to preserve a modified disk (unless maybe it's the last/only copy in existence).

 

BTW, HxC floppy emulators support IPF images.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited September 19, 2017 by adolescent

[majestyx]

I lean more towards the deprotection route. There were some protections back in the day which, even if you had an original, wouldn't work properly. The SPS takes their good old time in "approving" submissions, not to mention that, as far as I know, you still can't get those images once they have been approved unless you are the one who submitted them. It seems like a whole lot of effort and expense for very little reward. I do know that the UAE Amiga emulator is able to use IPFs if you can find them, but I'm not as familiar with the Apple ][ side of things.

 

I've also come to find that the most heavily protected games usually weren't the best ones, making me wonder why back in the day they didn't spend more effort on making a good game instead of such annoying copy protection. One I can think of was Shadowkeep. I had an original of this back in the 80s and could never make a backup of it with any copy program that was available. The program ran ridiculously slow with non-stop disk access which was my main reason for wanting to make backups. I didn't bother to play it for very long before moving on to something else.

 

I do appreciate the historical implications behind using the Kyroflux, but for practical purposes, I'm in the deprotection camp until the IPF format is both implemented in emulators and the images are made more widely available for use in an emulator.

[+remowilliams]

Software must be fully preserved in its original state in as high a fidelity as is possible, and that means Kryo/Supercard flux level today.

 

Deprotection can always be done afterwards, and redone from the original preserved images if/when its found that it wasn't done correctly or has other previously unknown issues.

[MarkO]

It's ALL Important...

 

Preserve both the Application and the Protection.....

 

Then Crack the Applications so that it can be placed on just about any sort of Media....

 

 

If you can only do One, Preserve Both, then as time permits, Crack the Application.

 

 

 

MarkO

[Keatah]

I feel that protection is a distortion, a plague, an unintended modification on the programmer's original vision. And it should be done away with.

 

Automated means of cracking isn't necessarily the best way of going about it. But it helps with the grind. Sometimes a company used different methods or multiple methods that an automated deprotector won't be aware of. In any case, a freshly deprotected program should be tested completely. Back in the day they did get tested by virtue of everyone using it, not so much now. Not too many of us play classic software through to completion. Most make sure it boots and shows a screen. Play for 5 minutes, then done. Not time enough to reveal any missed secondary protection schemes.