www.virtualacorn.co.uk/forum

A while ago my copy of VA decided that it was not registered and needed a new unlock code. After many questions about what I had added to my laptop I was given another code but was non the wiser as to what had caused it. Several weeks passed and then VA decided that it was unregistered again. Luckily this time it had reverted back to the old code which I entered. All went well until last week when it decided that it needed yet another code. After much hair pulling I tracked down the chage to my network connections configuration. To get VA to unlock I need to enable my Loal Area Connection and internal wireless card. I had disabled both when I added a faster external wirless card. Surely there must be a better way to protect this software from piracy rather that looking at what services are enabled.

I thoroughly agree, Dave.

I have been hawking VA around various places since I bought an early version of VA5000, extolling its virtues. I would guess I am probably partly responsible for sales of around 10-20 pieces of various flavours of VA software. But I don't think that the registration system for VRPC-SE/ Adjust is user friendly, especially for those of us who use external WiFi cards, or change networking hardware on a regular basis, for instance. People have not been impressed with my promised demos which aborted as I had forgotten to bring along my networking card - most embarrasing.

I raised this with Aaron at the SASAUG SE show last year, and he agreed to talk to Graeme and RISCOS Ltd. about it...


Richard Nevill.

I will be changing my motherboard soon and it will have on board networking. Does this mean I will have to get a new unlock code? I won't be using the old network card as there are only 2 expansion slots - everything I "need" is on board, sound, firewire, usb, network, etc. Still I guess it's only a phone call away.

Alan

A customer recently brought in his PC to have his newly installed VRPC-SE setup and XP Service Pack 2'd. I did the SP2 upgrade first, then attended to VRPC. Alas the unlock key reported as invalid. I emailed Aaron who replied with a new unlock code which worked fine. Customer returns home happy with computer, but reports that as soon as he tried to boot VRPC, an invalid unlock code was reported. Entering his original unlock code cured it. Then reading this thread woke me up to the probable cause: my customer has his ethernet port normally 'disabled' but I had enabled it while in the workshop, then disabled it prior to giving it back. I agree absolutely it would be good to have a more sensible protection system.

I agree that this method of software protection is ridiculous. It prevents users from using their software!

I have different network settings depending on whether I am at home, in the office, in the lab, etc. Now I know why VRPC doesn't start. I did email Aaron asking for a new code, but it never arrived. However even if it had, I would still need to re-register the program almost every time I want to start it.

I don't use VRPC much any more, because of this problem (I can always rely on the older VA).

PLEASE can we have a patch that fixes this.

I fully simpathise with the comments above.
I've pretty much stopped using this very good emulator ( cost a lot of money esp as I was an early adopter ) because of its stupid, stupid, stupid, STUPID, copy protection system.
Every time I make pretty much any changes to my system - here we go again! No more RPC...
Aaron must spend more time fielding queeries about this than he does writing software or selling the product.
A few months ago I thought I'd have another go @ using VRPC-SE - same old nonsence, then quite by accident I found a very simple way of circumventing the copy protection. ( No I'm not going to tell anyone how )
For a while all well until I discovered that none of the updates would install - Bah! Maybe a result of what I did, but then another gripe of mine is how hard its always been to get the updates to install. ( I'd even be happier with a bunch of files so I could do it by hand )
I e-mailed Aaron ( I hope politely ) detailing my concerns & pointing out that given how easy the copy-protection is to circumvent anyway, how about a new scheme @ long last & also could I have yet another unlock code in the hope of being able to install the updates?
-No reply-
Aaron is obviously a decent chap & has written a wonderful piece of software but this is really getting up my nose!! ( I wonder if his lack of reply is down to him thinking me to be some kind of arch-hacker - no I'm not )
Anyway more months of not using the software I've paid for, now I'm in the process of putting a mini-itx board into an old A3000 & I'd like to be able to use my legally bought software on it without using the stunt I've discovered.
So...
Aaron please - change the copy protection scheme. PLEASE.
( I've already proven how useless it is for IP protection anyway )
Maybe more robust/non-automated updates would be nice too.
Thanks in advance.

Bump
In Aaron's defence I suspect this is not a problem of his making...
He must be aware that there are MUCH more robust copy-protection schemes that are far more user-friendly. A lot are under GPL so he wouldn't incurr much in the way of development time or costs by making a change.
My belief is that this sorry excuse for a copy protection scheme has been forced on him by RiscOS Ltd as part of the licensing deal to use their ROM's, but he is too polite to say so in public.
I hope I'm wrong as this business must be alienating more users than me. ( Also costing potential sales )
Regards

For anyone who runs into any problems with VirtualRPC saying it needs registering you need to contact me, preferably by phone if it's during office hours, or by e-mail out of hours.
We have lots of users and 99.99% have no difficulties at all. Of course whatever you do it's bound to cause the odd glitch somewhere.
Just so everyone is clear I am more than happy to sort out any problem, although it's easier to do this on the phone. E-Mail is not 100% reliable, especially with modern spam filters.
If a problem occurs contact me directly so I can help out. If you don't contact me then I can't help out. Remember, phone, don't moan.

Aaron:
I am well aware that you are always helpful over 'issues' & usually bend over backwards to help out - on that count I have no complaints.
The emulator is great - I wish you all the best in future developments.
I'm glad to hear that the majority have no issues...
Given my own experience, I'm suprised. Mine may be an extreme case but most PC users live with regular changes of hardware / software / configuration. The very things that seem to trigger the copy-protection.
Trouble is...
I can only report my own experiences. I'm pretty sure that if I presisted in using VRPC as it should be you would soon get fedup with calls every other day for new unlock codes as that's at least how often my PC changes sufficiently to run afoul of the current system.
Yes, to an extent I am moaning, and maybe the forum is not the most fair place air my feelings about the problems I'm having. But, apart from contacting you, ( again ) my main goal in posting is to see what the general view on this subject is and maybe if I'm not alone start some disussion as to how us users would hope this could change in the future.
i.e. feedback to the developer(s)
Best regards.

In reply to Charlie:
I'll say it again. Phone don't moan. Instead of posting here, where it's difficult for me to help, ring me up so I can sort out the problem. For the record regular changes of hardware/software/configuration do not cause the copy protection to twitch in normal circumstances.
You won't need to call every other day for an unlock code, if you give me the opportunity to help you sort out the problem. It's a shame that in the current RISC OS market there are too many users who prefer to whinge in public rather than allowing the developer to help them to solve the problem in the first place.
Ring me up.

Ok...
I can see the point I'm trying to make is not getting through.
I have absolutely no issues with the excellent support or fantastic software - all the best for the future.
My apologies if my comments have seemed more to do with moanig than trying to be constructive.
I'll stop posting now.
Bye.

For what it's worth, I'm inclined to agree with your comments. There has been a suggestion on usenet that a nice solution would be if the software were locked to a USB pen. This /appears/ to meet the constraints I can think of and certainly appeals to me.

Yes, isn't that one of the points in having a forum like this - so people can share opinons/problems/solutions?
Adam