Hoster 3.317 upgrade

[ddouglass]

I am not sure why they left that information off other than that one of the design team just spent some time in the hospital, so it may have been missed.

It is called protecting your products. Every software company is trying to protect what is rightfully theirs from being pirated and this is how MTU is looking to do it. Even before you had to use a floppy disc or a usb memory stick to install. This is just a little bit tighter. It is still better than some companies which require an added key of some kind.

This also helps MTU to identify which registration to unlock if you need it reset without having to search through thousands of accounts. Many people have ordered under one email address and then use another to request a reset. MTU searches for the email given in the request and can't find it because it isn't the right one. This takes up additional time to find out the right information.

[searcherone]

You seem to forget that under 3.315 if a valid hoster license was installed an update could be done WITHOUT the floppy or internet. I felt this was a step in the right direction. First, you can't get the upgrade unless you are a registered user (that's one level of protection), Second if it's pirated this won't stop anyone from using the product. Having been in the IT field for 30 years I've seen protection schemes come and go. They have never stopped piracy, only lost loyal customers to companies with similar products and less stringent update policies. You either trust your user base or you don't.

I agree that MTU should protect new installs from piracy, but updates requiring re-registry each time?? Too much like Microsoft... I'm sure if I look I can find a crack for MTU and bypass the license all together. So the next logical step in software protection is to do what microsoft is now doing with Vista and force registration verification every 180 days in the background without user consent or knowledge until one day they get an error message that they have 30 days to buy a new license.

[ddouglass]

Originally Posted by searcherone

You seem to forget that under 3.315 if a valid hoster license was installed an update could be done WITHOUT the floppy or internet. I felt this was a step in the right direction. First, you can't get the upgrade unless you are a registered user (that's one level of protection), Second if it's pirated this won't stop anyone from using the product. Having been in the IT field for 30 years I've seen protection schemes come and go. They have never stopped piracy, only lost loyal customers to companies with similar products and less stringent update policies. You either trust your user base or you don't.

You are correct that protection schemes are not fool proof or at least not forever. Getting the upgrade does not require being a registered user anymore as the downloads are available on the website without going through the store account now. The deterent for the piracy now is anytime you install, the MTU server must verify your information before allowing the install to proceed. If you try to install on more computers than are allowed this will also stop the install, so trying to copy and pirate the program won't work.

Originally Posted by searcherone

I agree that MTU should protect new installs from piracy, but updates requiring re-registry each time??

If an update was just additional or changed files and not the whole program then I might agree with you, but since it is the full program included in every update then the same protection should apply.

Originally Posted by searcherone

Too much like Microsoft... I'm sure if I look I can find a crack for MTU and bypass the license all together. So the next logical step in software protection is to do what microsoft is now doing with Vista and force registration verification every 180 days in the background without user consent or knowledge until one day they get an error message that they have 30 days to buy a new license.

That type of verification of could still be coming. It could also make it easier for us to re-install for what ever reason because you wouldn't have to wait for MTU to reset your registration.

Just for FYI, I to have worked in IT for the last 40 years (recently retired) and have seen all the changes over the years. It isn't that protection schemes don't work but that the hackers and criminals eventually catch up. They are like the squirrels in my backyard. They eventually figure out how to get to the birdfeeder regardless of what I do to prevent it.
And just so there is no misconception, I do not work for or represent MTU. I am just a user like yourself.

[searcherone]

It isn't that protection schemes don't work but that the hackers and criminals eventually catch up. They are like the squirrels in my backyard. They eventually figure out how to get to the birdfeeder regardless of what I do to prevent it.

My point exactly... they don't stop the people they are intended to foil... (Hackers will never buy software. People that use hacked programs are also unlikely to buy software.) They only create inconvenience and confusion for the honest users...

It strikes me as odd that a program primarily designed for professionals, intended to be used away from home where INTERNET connections will be unlikely, would require and INTERNET connection to update.

To update I now have to unrack two main systems that are installed in bars bring them home reactivate the networking,(which is disabled when not in use, and services unloaded), connect to the INTERNET do a two minute update, disable then services again shut down networking, then drag them back to the bars and re-install and test them. About two hours of my time instead of five minutes, to make MTU feel better about a few possible hackers who will beat the protection anyway.

I feel protection schemes like this waste valuable limited development resources, while producing a function of limited life and value. These resources would be better spent improving the and expanding the product line.

If you've been in the business as long as you say them you remember companies like dbase, paradox, Harvard graphics, xywrite, wordstar, and hundreds of others that lost focus on producing the the best product, and wasted valuable development resources creating protection schemes in the belief that they were losing money or that they would make more money. End result they still got hacked and either went out of business or are no longer a major player.