From:
                                                            5/27/97 11:00 PM
Subject: MAX Digest - 26 May 1997 to 27 May
1997To: Recipients of MAX digests 

There are 6 messages totalling 211 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. Development tools for externals (2)
  2. Copy Protection
  3. C++ for MAX
  4. Timeline using bangs
  5. Dongle v. Disk Authorizantion (was Re: Venting Opcode Frustration)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 27 May 1997 11:15:36 +0200
From:    Peter Castine 
Subject: Re: Development tools for externals

Nick Rothwell wrote:
>Unfortunately, projects which use the Object C extensions have to be
>multi-segment, and I seem to recall David saying something about
>multi-segment projects being problematic (something to do with code
>resource id's?). If this is not the case I'd love to use Object C rather
>than vanilla C.

There was some information on dealing with multi-segment code in the
how-to-write-externals documentation. My understanding was that it was
tricky, not impossible (but I've not actually done it, never having tackled
an external project that would have required doing so).

Surrounding the above, Nick added:
>Hey, some of us are still quite happy with THINK C as the compiler for
>writing MAX externals. (I also enjoy banging rocks together.)
[schnipp]
>(OK, so I should probably buy CodeWarrier, plus a CD-ROM drive, plus more
>memory for all my Macs, install PPC upgrades, sell them all and buy PPC
>Macs instead, take them all to System 7.6, etc. etc.)

THINK C was a great (and still is a usable) compiler (and THINK's 68k
Pascal implementation is still, after all these years, the best around.
IMHO.). But Symantec's support of these products after buying THINK has
been (at best) too little, too late. For someone who does not already have
a compiler and needs to purchase one (situation of the original enquiry), I
would recommend CodeWarrior. If I hadn't needed to go CW on a different
project, I might still be using THINK, too (and I would probably not have
upgraded beyond v.6). Nick: you and I _both_ swim against the
latest-fastest-snazziest-buggiest stream (although probably in different
parts of the pool). But my usual recommendation to someone starting at
something (like developing for Max on Mac) is to get the newest (and
fastest--to the extent affordable)  of everything, since you're probably
going to want it to last a while.

Cheers,

Peter

------------------ http://www.prz.tu-berlin.de/~pcastine/ ------------------
Dr. Peter Castine           | The e-mail address still works. It's just the
pcastine@prz.tu-berlin.de   | university computer center that's been flaky
                            | (particularly on public holidays).
                            | If mail bounces, please try again.

------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 27 May 1997 13:46:00 BST-1
From:    Ian Waugh 
Subject: Re: Copy Protection

> From:    Nick Rothwell 
> Subject: Re: Copy Protection Fucked Report #416
>
> >Send bug reports and complaints to:
> >
> >Allen Cronce
> >Pace Anti-Piracy
> >(408) 297-7444
> >allen@paceap.com
>
> Ooh, goodness! Pace has a Face.
>
> Actually, the replies to my bug reports will probably be "yeah, we fixed
> that." Unfortunately, the problems will persist in my old versions of
> everything, and unlike conventional software bugs these ones will
> eventually wear out my irreplaceable key disk (singular)...
>
> I'll drop them a line anyway.

Hi Nick,
       Do let us know the response. I contacted Allen about his CP scheme
 as I was planning an article on the subject but at the first question he
clammed up and refused to reply to emails. They say he's as paranoid as
his software...

Cheers,
Ian

------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 27 May 1997 14:00:17 +0100
From:    Nick Rothwell 
Subject: Re: Development tools for externals

>There was some information on dealing with multi-segment code in the
>how-to-write-externals documentation. My understanding was that it was
>tricky, not impossible (but I've not actually done it, never having tackled
>an external project that would have required doing so).

I thought David mentioned some problem with resource numbering or something
which caused problems with THINK C's multisegment projects.

>THINK C was a great (and still is a usable) compiler (and THINK's 68k
>Pascal implementation is still, after all these years, the best around.
>IMHO.). But Symantec's support of these products after buying THINK has
>been (at best) too little, too late.

That's always been the case for anything Symantec has bought IMO.

>For someone who does not already have
>a compiler and needs to purchase one (situation of the original enquiry), I
>would recommend CodeWarrior.

I agree; CW seems to be a better bet than whatever Symantec are shipping
these days, if anything. The reason I stick with THINK C is that I've been
using it for 7 or 8 years now, and for 680x0 MAX development it's small,
fast and simple.

>But my usual recommendation to someone starting at
>something (like developing for Max on Mac) is to get the newest (and
>fastest--to the extent affordable)  of everything, since you're probably
>going to want it to last a while.

Of course, it depends on budget, but some classes of people starting out
want something cheap and simple which works, and will motivate themselves
to upgrade if the initial experience is positive.

         Nick Rothwell, CASSIEL        contemporary dance projects
         http://www.cassiel.com        music synthesis and control

             years, passing by, VCO, VCF, and again, and again

------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 27 May 1997 08:05:24 +0100
From:    Nick Rothwell 
Subject: Re: C++ for MAX

>I seem to remember UIowa's archive containing a application which
encapsulated
>regular C functions in a C++ like "blanket" (or jumpsuit!?).
>It was called something like Yacc.

YACC is a parser generator.

         Nick Rothwell, CASSIEL        contemporary dance projects
         http://www.cassiel.com        music synthesis and control

             years, passing by, VCO, VCF, and again, and again

------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 27 May 1997 20:12:38 -0400
From:    "Mark H. Wong" 
Subject: Timeline using bangs

 After saving a timeline that contains TiCmd bang actions and closing my
patch, when i reopen the patch it changes the way the timeline events are
displayed in the same track.
   For example, I had 2 events in the same track (2 separate kinds of bangs)
and when I reopened the patch, it had changed the event to read "A1 #TR
event
message messenger A2 2062 1600 60 75 2 9 3 1 #TR TREnd"
  As a result, the patch does not play the same way as I had saved it, nor
does it look anything like I had saved it previously.
  Is there a solution to this?
-Mark

------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 27 May 1997 17:24:53 -0700
From:    John Altman 
Subject: Dongle v. Disk Authorizantion (was Re: Venting Opcode Frustration)

Mike Metlay wrote, on 5.2.97:

>Another question (please forgive me if this is slightly off topic, but
>it does point to a ray of hope for MAXers tired of losing installs):
>does anyone have any hard data, as opposed to supposition and rumour,
>on the relative security and reliability of hardware-based vs.
>software-based systems (i.e. dongles vs. authorizations)? I don't know
>much about kracking, but it would seem to me that a dongle CP scheme
>would provide more system reliability (less likelihood of failures, to
>say nothing of the ability to back up one's apps) at the cost of
>easier kracking (figure out what the app looks for in the dongle,
>build it into the code, and you're done).
>
>Opcode has never said anything at all even hinting that they might
>consider going to dongles, at least not to me. But I can't help but be
>curious about whether such a scheme would make life better or worse
>for MAXers. It should be obvious that I bring to the topic the
>fresh-faced naivete of someone who's never worked with dongles....
>
>mike

As all can see, I am way behind in my attention to the MAX list, but will
chime in to say that I've worked for years with dongle-protected prepress
software and have found this to be an infinitely superior means of copy
protection. You add the dongle to the ADB bus and that's that. I've never
experienced any dongle-related problems, and have at times worked with two
or three different dongles attached to my work machine.

As for MAX, I've never been able to authorize my hard disk, neither with
the disk that came with it, nor with another sent me by Opcode. (v.3.0)

If sellers of $5000 prepress apps are satisfied with the protection
provided by dongles, I think Opcode might also find them acceptable. I
wonder if cost is the issue?

John Altman

_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+

 "The power of bullshit is mighty and will prevail." -- Abraham Altman, 1915

------------------------------

End of MAX Digest - 26 May 1997 to 27 May 1997
**********************************************