
backupable, if restored to the same machine >>(depends>> on the
programmer...  don't use a disk drive characteristic!) If the user >> did
an upgrade to the machine, he/she should reinstall all programs any way.

have been quite pissed at any software that would have forced me to

Opinion is understandable.  :-)  I assume you have a tape drive?  Not all
of us have about 200 floppies around for backup, you know.  

4Mb >of RAM to their computer?  I did that a couple of weeks ago.  It's in
the >BIOS, and if software had told me "this isn't the machine you
installed me >on" I would never have used that software again.  Really bad
idea. 

RAM is something you add all the time, so no.  It's more like BIOS
manufacturer and/or processor type (386/486/etc).  Data cannot be used,
esp with these new Flash ROM BIOS machines with updates on a diskette.

On the other hand, to make this LESS intrusive it could be disguised as
"Please Insert Original Disk #XX as I need file YYYYYY for update".  :-) 
It would be perfectly reasonable...  Sort of.

user's >> conscience should do that. 

give >them that.  Your scheme isn't going to stop anyone. 

Of course it is easier.  Are you saying then the originals SHOULD allow
only one install?  What is your point?

the quiz?  TWO!  Yes, TWO!  (And don't ask me which ones they are.)

instruction >to just completely skip it.  Not that difficult, really!  And
there is very >little that commpanies can do to stop this type of thing. 
Using PKLITE or >some similar utility would help, but only if the
resulting compressed .EXE >were tagged as uncompressable. 

I know x86 and 680x0 assembly quite well, thank you.  I know exactly which
two bytes need to be changed, I have the code to do them too.  I just said
"Don't ask me which ones."  I didn't say I don't know what that means.

Such hacking can be EASILY discouraged by adding anti-patching code which
does a self-check upon execution and refuse to load if CRC does not match
value stored (encrypted, of course) in the program.  It could be claimed
as a part of anti-virus code, and it would not be far from the truth. 

a special patch once the user registers that loudly exclaims upon bootup
above. 


Did ANYONE read what I wrote?  That is NOT what I wrote! (or meant!)  

What I said was the program should have certain restriction (such as the
restrict-to-one-machine) UNTIL the program is registered with the
manufacturer.  The manufacturer will then supply the
then-proven-legitimate-user with a patch that will disable the restriction
and PROUDLY PROCLAIM the legal copy with the "Registered to XXX" screen.


Of course they will, but that was NOT my point.  The purpose of copy
protection is to discourage casual pirates ("Oh, can I have a copy of
that?"/"Sure, here.") and the less sophisticated pirates ("Let's look for
all those calls to INT13H...") .  Any one determined enough to break copy
protection can and will succeed.  They can always backtrace the entire
load-sequence of the program.  The point of copy protection is to make
such attempts take as long as possible while not intruding upon the uses
(or to minimize such intrusion) of legitimate use.  Pirates who see copy
protection as a challenge love breaking them, and no amount of copy
protection will stop them, but the rest of us WILL be stopped.  How many
of these hardcore pirates are there compared to rest of us?  Not that many.