Megalextoria
Retro computing and gaming, sci-fi books, tv and movies and other geeky stuff.

Home » Digital Archaeology » Computer Arcana » Commodore » Commodore 8-bit » Re: Bounty Bob Strikes Back
Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend 
Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Re: Bounty Bob Strikes Back [message #169612] Sat, 21 October 2006 18:39 Go to next message
rebocardo is currently offline  rebocardo
Messages: 142
Registered: December 2004
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Probably was duplicated on a PC. If so, the first couple of tracks mean
nothing. Format a CBM disk, then copy tracks 11-35 to the CBM disk and see
if you have a bootable disk.
Re: Bounty Bob Strikes Back [message #169629 is a reply to message #169612] Sun, 22 October 2006 05:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wolfgang Moser is currently offline  Wolfgang Moser
Messages: 632
Registered: July 2003
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Hi,

rebocardo schrieb:
> Probably was duplicated on a PC.

there is no way to duplicate GCR data
with standard PC hardware (the FM/MFM
floppy controller). Althoug ...

> If so, the first couple of tracks mean
> nothing. Format a CBM disk, then copy
> tracks 11-35 to the CBM disk and see
> if you have a bootable disk.


.... it is imaginable the the Master
disk of BBSB! was created in a two-step
process by first writing the Commodore
GCR tracks in a CBM disk drive and then
writing the "foreign" tracks in a disk
drive (and controller) suited best for
that format.


rebocardo, are you able describe a
proof for the first 10 tracks not
intented to be read by Commdore disk
drives?

Maybe a track display should be used
to watch, if tracks 1 to 10 are ever
accessed when playing BBSB! ?


Womo
Re: Bounty Bob Strikes Back [message #169644 is a reply to message #169612] Sun, 22 October 2006 09:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Pete Rittwage is currently offline  Pete Rittwage
Messages: 444
Registered: March 2005
Karma: 0
Senior Member
rebocardo wrote:
> Probably was duplicated on a PC. If so, the first couple of tracks mean
> nothing. Format a CBM disk, then copy tracks 11-35 to the CBM disk and see
> if you have a bootable disk.
>
>

Nope, the data is contained on these tracks as a custom loader processes
them. It's a difficult copy protection. I'll need to disassemble it to
see what it's doing, I'm afraid.


--
-
Pete Rittwage
http://rittwage.com

C64 Preservation Project
http://c64preservation.com
Re: Bounty Bob Strikes Back [message #169652 is a reply to message #169629] Sun, 22 October 2006 18:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Bruce Tomlin

In article <ehfd2k$ch2$1@online.de>,
Wolfgang Moser <wnhp@d81.de.invalid> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> rebocardo schrieb:
>> Probably was duplicated on a PC.

I presume we're talking about the C64 version, then? FWIW, the A5200
version uses two Atari 2600-style bankswitch chips.

> there is no way to duplicate GCR data
> with standard PC hardware (the FM/MFM
> floppy controller). Althoug ...

Get a Catweasel board. And then if you ever have to read Atari
floppies, you get to bitch about them tweaking the motor speed to get
one more sector per track. And writing all the data inverted.

But I'm not sure how much software there is to read C64 floppies with a
Catweasel. I wrote my own barely-working code to read and decode C64
floppies under Linux, with no attempt at handling copy-protection beyond
anything a bit-copy could do. (I have plenty of disks to work with, but
not enough time or interest... and lots of those disks were warez.)

However, I think there is software that will "bit copy" discs using a
Catweasel, but since the current version has two SID sockets, there may
even be emulator support. And copy protection that relies on track sync
(such as reading sectors from multiple tracks by stepping and expecting
the disk to be right at the next sector) will be a problem.

>> If so, the first couple of tracks mean
>> nothing. Format a CBM disk, then copy
>> tracks 11-35 to the CBM disk and see
>> if you have a bootable disk.

One problem with non-PC stuff written to PC formatted discs is that they
will show data on the second side. But it's pretty obvious that it
would be PC data, because C64 disks were almost exclusively flippy, and
the second side will not be flippy.

> ... it is imaginable the the Master
> disk of BBSB! was created in a two-step
> process by first writing the Commodore
> GCR tracks in a CBM disk drive and then
> writing the "foreign" tracks in a disk
> drive (and controller) suited best for
> that format.

FWIW, the Apple II esentially uses FM for its track/sector numbers.
Those 16 codes are a subset of its valid 8-bit GCR codes. Commodore
used a 5-bit GCR, so it's not quite so easy to read FM. Both of them
make it way too easy to invent your own disk formats.
Re: Bounty Bob Strikes Back [message #169665 is a reply to message #169652] Mon, 23 October 2006 08:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Jerry Kurtz is currently offline  Jerry Kurtz
Messages: 244
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
I have the Catweasel V4, and its support for 1541 disks is a joke.
Even Star Commander supports the Error Information Block that a .d64
contains -- the Catweasel even chokes on CBM DOS errors. Forget
anything slightly copy protected beyond that.





Bruce Tomlin wrote:
> In article <ehfd2k$ch2$1@online.de>,
> Wolfgang Moser <wnhp@d81.de.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> rebocardo schrieb:
>>> Probably was duplicated on a PC.
>
> I presume we're talking about the C64 version, then? FWIW, the A5200
> version uses two Atari 2600-style bankswitch chips.
>
>> there is no way to duplicate GCR data
>> with standard PC hardware (the FM/MFM
>> floppy controller). Althoug ...
>
> Get a Catweasel board. And then if you ever have to read Atari
> floppies, you get to bitch about them tweaking the motor speed to get
> one more sector per track. And writing all the data inverted.
>
> But I'm not sure how much software there is to read C64 floppies with a
> Catweasel. I wrote my own barely-working code to read and decode C64
> floppies under Linux, with no attempt at handling copy-protection beyond
> anything a bit-copy could do. (I have plenty of disks to work with, but
> not enough time or interest... and lots of those disks were warez.)
>
> However, I think there is software that will "bit copy" discs using a
> Catweasel, but since the current version has two SID sockets, there may
> even be emulator support. And copy protection that relies on track sync
> (such as reading sectors from multiple tracks by stepping and expecting
> the disk to be right at the next sector) will be a problem.
>
>>> If so, the first couple of tracks mean
>>> nothing. Format a CBM disk, then copy
>>> tracks 11-35 to the CBM disk and see
>>> if you have a bootable disk.
>
> One problem with non-PC stuff written to PC formatted discs is that they
> will show data on the second side. But it's pretty obvious that it
> would be PC data, because C64 disks were almost exclusively flippy, and
> the second side will not be flippy.
>
>> ... it is imaginable the the Master
>> disk of BBSB! was created in a two-step
>> process by first writing the Commodore
>> GCR tracks in a CBM disk drive and then
>> writing the "foreign" tracks in a disk
>> drive (and controller) suited best for
>> that format.
>
> FWIW, the Apple II esentially uses FM for its track/sector numbers.
> Those 16 codes are a subset of its valid 8-bit GCR codes. Commodore
> used a 5-bit GCR, so it's not quite so easy to read FM. Both of them
> make it way too easy to invent your own disk formats.
Re: Bounty Bob Strikes Back [message #169666 is a reply to message #169665] Mon, 23 October 2006 15:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Bruce Tomlin

In article <1161608083.495437.62110@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
"Jerry Kurtz" <jerrykurtz@earthlink.net> wrote:

> I have the Catweasel V4, and its support for 1541 disks is a joke.
> Even Star Commander supports the Error Information Block that a .d64
> contains -- the Catweasel even chokes on CBM DOS errors. Forget
> anything slightly copy protected beyond that.

Well, if you're going to bitch about the Catweasel, you have to at least
conditionalize it as "with the supplied/available software". The CW
hardware is generally capable of much more than the software you use
with it. Brilliant hardware with poor software support, the best of
which is Tim Mann's cw2dmk for FM/MFM disks. And that runs under Linux.

However even with my own hacked up code based loosely on Tim Mann's
code, it was a pain and two-thirds to even get to read a
non-copy-protected CBM disk reliably, because in my experience, CBM's
GCR format is way too prone to getting derailed when decoding it, plus
you have to compensate for the variable data rate, and a copy-protected
program can easily have a track written at the "wrong" speed.

Apple II GCR is much more robust, with its higher bad to good code
ratio, plus its coding is much easier to get back in bit sync (not that
you get much useful data with a partial sector read because of the 8:5
or 8:6 repacking)

But neither of them are helped by C= or Apple ignoring the sector hole.
The CW hardware doesn't make it easy to read data that crosses a sector
hole boundary. You basically have to over-read by at least a sector
worth of data, then identify and throw out the unwanted data. Writing
back raw data without clipping it to sector boundaries will likely
result in a bad write where a partial sector ends up overwriting part of
the same sector, with a splice that is unlikely to be accurate. And
reading flippy disks is made much harder because many direct-drive
floppy drives actually supress the data until they see the sector hole.
I suppose you could reverse the data, but that might not be as easy as
it sounds.
Re: Bounty Bob Strikes Back [message #169667 is a reply to message #169666] Mon, 23 October 2006 16:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wolfgang Moser is currently offline  Wolfgang Moser
Messages: 632
Registered: July 2003
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Hello Bruce,

Bruce Tomlin schrieb:
> In article <1161608083.495437.62110@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> "Jerry Kurtz" <jerrykurtz@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> I have the Catweasel V4, and its support for 1541 disks is a joke.
>> Even Star Commander supports the Error Information Block that a .d64
>> contains -- the Catweasel even chokes on CBM DOS errors. Forget
>> anything slightly copy protected beyond that.
>
> Well, if you're going to bitch about the Catweasel, you have to at least
> conditionalize it as "with the supplied/available software". The CW
> hardware is generally capable of much more than the software you use
> with it. Brilliant hardware with poor software support, the best of

at least the hardware _design_ is/was thought to be
capable of at least reading any thinkable _digital_
low level data up to a decent bitrate (limited by
CWs max sample rate).
You would need to write some capable software that
drives teh CW to the limits to check out, if the
hardware actually is able to deliver what it was
thought for. If I do interprete the announcement
for the MK4 Catweasel right, then I get the feeling
that Jens put an FPGA onto it, because he probably
expects some incompatibilities between waht the CW
was thought it can do and what it actually is able
to do. The FPGA in the MK4 allows for upgrades
through the driver as I understand it, whenever
some software gets limited by hardware restrictions.

> But neither of them are helped by C= or Apple ignoring the sector hole.
> The CW hardware doesn't make it easy to read data that crosses a sector

Nice that you mention it. Years ago I had some
insight into development of ARJuna, a plugin
framework for the CW. Its developer also told me
something about the difficulties with the MK3 CW
to handle exactly such overlap areas with the
MK3 on writing back any tracks. The MK3 and its
predecessors could only write tracks from one
index pulse the the next one, ... or maybe its
the disk drive itself, I don't know anymore.

I believe the MK4 is fixed for that, but you
should consider this as a rumor, I had no
"developer talk" with Jens Schoenfeld about that
(no need for, since I did not decide yet to
actually start developing something for the CW,
there're too much other interesting projects)

> reading flippy disks is made much harder because many direct-drive
> floppy drives actually supress the data until they see the sector hole.
> I suppose you could reverse the data, but that might not be as easy as
> it sounds.

Maybe you can reverse the data, but you will
never become able to write track 1 with the head
for the reversed side. The R/W head of the
opposite disk side has got some track offset, so
if the "normal" head is at track 1, the opposite
head is around track 2...

So you definetly will have to create some fake
index hole pulse generation circuitry.


Womo
Re: Bounty Bob Strikes Back [message #169671 is a reply to message #169667] Mon, 23 October 2006 19:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Bruce Tomlin

In article <ehj8gr$iqo$1@online.de>,
Wolfgang Moser <wnhp@d81.de.invalid> wrote:

> Maybe you can reverse the data, but you will
> never become able to write track 1 with the head
> for the reversed side. The R/W head of the
> opposite disk side has got some track offset, so
> if the "normal" head is at track 1, the opposite
> head is around track 2...

Oh damn, that was the problem! I forgot about the stupid track offset.
I seem to recall that it's on the order of two tracks, not one. Of
course most of the systems which used flippy disks also used 40-track
heads, so you could use 80-track positioning to get a little more
precise alignment, but you wouldn't be able to read the outermost two
tracks.

Tim Mann's cw2dmk does have a reverse-MFM detection which will tell you
it thinks it sees a flippy disk, but I think only Atari ever used FM/MFM
while ignoring the sector hole, allowing flippy disks without having to
punch a new sector hole. I had a TRS-80 back in the day and had to go
through that extra effort. Now if I can just find where in the house I
lost my box full of old TRS-80 disks about three years ago, I'll be all
set. :-(
Re: Bounty Bob Strikes Back [message #169674 is a reply to message #169671] Mon, 23 October 2006 21:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Raymond Day is currently offline  Raymond Day
Messages: 42
Registered: February 2013
Karma: 0
Member
I started with a TRS-80 too. I had Bounty Bob Strikes back for it too. I
know I still have the box and disk for it some place.

I all so have it for the commodore. I have the box and disk for it all so.

I think it was called BIG 5 softwere and they did very good ones for the
TRS-80 and that's what I got this one for the commodore.

I think Maverick can copy it. I have lots of pramitor disc for Maverick and
I think that's one of them to copy Bounty Bob Strikes back.

-Raymond Day
Re: Bounty Bob Strikes Back [message #169682 is a reply to message #169674] Tue, 24 October 2006 04:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wolfgang Moser is currently offline  Wolfgang Moser
Messages: 632
Registered: July 2003
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Hello Raymond,

Raymond Day schrieb:
> I started with a TRS-80 too. I had Bounty Bob Strikes back for it too. I
> know I still have the box and disk for it some place.
>
> I all so have it for the commodore. I have the box and disk for it all so.
>
> I think it was called BIG 5 softwere and they did very good ones for the
> TRS-80 and that's what I got this one for the commodore.
>
> I think Maverick can copy it. I have lots of pramitor disc for Maverick and
> I think that's one of them to copy Bounty Bob Strikes back.

as Pete told, he could not find any copier or
parameter for BBSB! except the one on Version
3 of the Supercard-Plus.

So I believe hime that Maverick is not able to
copy BBSB!. Nevermind, since this all doesn't
help in preservation with MNib, Pete definetly
needs to analyze this beast bit by bit.


Womo
Re: Bounty Bob Strikes Back [message #169686 is a reply to message #169674] Tue, 24 October 2006 10:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Bruce Tomlin

In article <gPd%g.19723$6S3.2823@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,
"Raymond Day" <raymondday61@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> I started with a TRS-80 too. I had Bounty Bob Strikes back for it too. I
> know I still have the box and disk for it some place.

Are you sure? I don't think Big 5 did Miner 2049er or BBSB for the
TRS-80. Just the Atari 400/800/5200. (I had the 5200 version of Miner
2049er back in the day.)

In fact, I didn't realize that they did anything for the C64 until this
thread, and I don't see a mention on their site
http://www.bigfivesoftware.com/ . Was the C64 version a port done by
someone else or what?
Re: Bounty Bob Strikes Back [message #169694 is a reply to message #169686] Tue, 24 October 2006 12:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
thewises is currently offline  thewises
Messages: 58
Registered: June 2005
Karma: 0
Member
> In fact, I didn't realize that they did anything for the C64 until
> this thread, and I don't see a mention on their site
> http://www.bigfivesoftware.com/ . Was the C64 version a port done by
> someone else or what?

Miner 2049er was actually on many systems. Here's the list:

Apple II (made by Micro Fun; this was released before the Atari version)

Atari 2600 (Tigervision; there were two separate cartridges made of this,
with 3 levels each)

Colecovision (Micro Fun; has one additional level)

Commodore 64 (Reston Software)

VIC-20 (Reston Software)

TI/99-4A (Tigervision; 8 levels)

IBM PC (Micro Fun)

And finally Mindscape did a Gameboy remake in 1992. This version is a sort
of hybrid, with the first two levels being from Miner 2049er and the rest
taken from BBSB.
Re: Bounty Bob Strikes Back [message #169699 is a reply to message #169682] Tue, 24 October 2006 19:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Pete Rittwage is currently offline  Pete Rittwage
Messages: 444
Registered: March 2005
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Wolfgang Moser wrote:
> Hello Raymond,
>
> Raymond Day schrieb:
>> I started with a TRS-80 too. I had Bounty Bob Strikes back for it too.
>> I know I still have the box and disk for it some place.
>>
>> I all so have it for the commodore. I have the box and disk for it all
>> so.
>>
>> I think it was called BIG 5 softwere and they did very good ones for
>> the TRS-80 and that's what I got this one for the commodore.
>>
>> I think Maverick can copy it. I have lots of pramitor disc for
>> Maverick and I think that's one of them to copy Bounty Bob Strikes back.
>
> as Pete told, he could not find any copier or
> parameter for BBSB! except the one on Version
> 3 of the Supercard-Plus.
>
> So I believe hime that Maverick is not able to
> copy BBSB!. Nevermind, since this all doesn't
> help in preservation with MNib, Pete definetly
> needs to analyze this beast bit by bit.

That looks like what has to happen. Such an odd title to find heavy
protection like this... Someone was a closet protection master. In
1985, nothing comes close to this.

--
-
Pete Rittwage
http://rittwage.com

C64 Preservation Project
http://c64preservation.com
Re: Bounty Bob Strikes Back [message #169719 is a reply to message #169694] Wed, 25 October 2006 06:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Li'l Slugger

"thewises" <thewises@enter.net> wrote in message
news:Xns986680F669CC2thewisesenternet@198.186.192.136...
>> In fact, I didn't realize that they did anything for the C64 until
>> this thread, and I don't see a mention on their site
>> http://www.bigfivesoftware.com/ . Was the C64 version a port done by
>> someone else or what?
>
> Miner 2049er was actually on many systems. Here's the list:
>
> Apple II (made by Micro Fun; this was released before the Atari version)
>
> Atari 2600 (Tigervision; there were two separate cartridges made of this,
> with 3 levels each)
>
> Colecovision (Micro Fun; has one additional level)
>
> Commodore 64 (Reston Software)
>
> VIC-20 (Reston Software)
>
> TI/99-4A (Tigervision; 8 levels)
>
> IBM PC (Micro Fun)
>
> And finally Mindscape did a Gameboy remake in 1992. This version is a sort
> of hybrid, with the first two levels being from Miner 2049er and the rest
> taken from BBSB.

Don't forget the Atari 5200 version
http://www.atariage.com/software_page.html?SoftwareID=2080
Re: Bounty Bob Strikes Back [message #169764 is a reply to message #169694] Wed, 25 October 2006 21:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Bruce Tomlin

In article <Xns986680F669CC2thewisesenternet@198.186.192.136>,
thewises <thewises@enter.net> wrote:

>> In fact, I didn't realize that they did anything for the C64 until
>> this thread, and I don't see a mention on their site
>> http://www.bigfivesoftware.com/ . Was the C64 version a port done by
>> someone else or what?
>
> Miner 2049er was actually on many systems. Here's the list:
>
> Apple II (made by Micro Fun; this was released before the Atari version)
>
> Atari 2600 (Tigervision; there were two separate cartridges made of this,
> with 3 levels each)
>
> Colecovision (Micro Fun; has one additional level)
>
> Commodore 64 (Reston Software)
>
> VIC-20 (Reston Software)
>
> TI/99-4A (Tigervision; 8 levels)
>
> IBM PC (Micro Fun)
>
> And finally Mindscape did a Gameboy remake in 1992. This version is a sort
> of hybrid, with the first two levels being from Miner 2049er and the rest
> taken from BBSB.

Well, there you go. None of those other versions weren't done by Big
Five, which was my point. And none of them were for the TRS-80.
Re: Bounty Bob Strikes Back [message #169777 is a reply to message #169629] Thu, 26 October 2006 12:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
rebocardo is currently offline  rebocardo
Messages: 142
Registered: December 2004
Karma: 0
Senior Member
> there is no way to duplicate GCR data
> with standard PC hardware (the FM/MFM

I never said standard. Duplicators that ran on PCs or automatic stand alone
duplicators that could create (from an internal HD) or copy CBM disks
(while at the same time writing an Atari image on the back side)
existed in the early 80s through the 90s.

Way back when, it was detailed in the MSD Users Group about changing only
three resistors on most 180/360K PC drives to allow them to write reliable
CBM disks. Even though the MSD could use the PC drives directly.

Where did the knowledge come from?
The people that duplicated CBM disks on PCs for companies
such as Epyx.

CatWeasel was not anything new, PCs writing CBM disks was being done in
the early 80s.

The same as commercial cross assemblers for ML and C programs, such as Manx
C, being available, for a price, long before things such as CC65 existed.

Just because most people have not heard of it, does not mean it was not
available.

I do not know why two formats would be mixed on one disk, I suspect so the
duplicator could find its way on disk to write the non-standard CBM tracks
blindly.
Re: Bounty Bob Strikes Back [message #169786 is a reply to message #169777] Thu, 26 October 2006 18:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wolfgang Moser is currently offline  Wolfgang Moser
Messages: 632
Registered: July 2003
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Heya,

rebocardo schrieb:
>> there is no way to duplicate GCR data
>> with standard PC hardware (the FM/MFM
>
> I never said standard. Duplicators that ran on PCs or automatic stand alone
> duplicators that could create (from an internal HD) or copy CBM disks
> (while at the same time writing an Atari image on the back side)
> existed in the early 80s through the 90s.

Maybe I got mislead by the term "PC", the professional
grade duplication systems of the 1980'ties I am aware
of were run by unixoide systems, far away from PC's.
Somthing more like DECsystem 5500 or VAXes on VMS and
such biests.

> Way back when, it was detailed in the MSD Users Group about changing only
> three resistors on most 180/360K PC drives to allow them to write reliable
> CBM disks. Even though the MSD could use the PC drives directly.

Aaaahhh, well, just recently I got some insight into
the MSD dual disk drive. Ray Carlsen put some docs
onto his site. And there was CLD again builting some
hardware items for these drives. They claimed to use
the MSD drives for duplicating their own software.

So, yes, maybe the MSD could be told a low end
duplicator directed by a CBM computer.

> Where did the knowledge come from?
> The people that duplicated CBM disks on PCs for companies
> such as Epyx.

Oh no, back then I was a young kid ;-) It's more from
reading books about magnetic digital storage systems
and techniques, modulation, saturation effects, ...,
well. Then the is the CAPS/SPS project with lots of
infos and references to old duplicator machines.
Namely the Trace Mountain machines where you still
can find lot's of stuff about, manuals and such.

> CatWeasel was not anything new, PCs writing CBM disks was being done in
> the early 80s.

Are you talking from the Central Point x?.. how was
it's name ... ah, well, the OptionBoard.

> The same as commercial cross assemblers for ML and C programs, such as Manx
> C, being available, for a price, long before things such as CC65 existed.
>
> Just because most people have not heard of it, does not mean it was not
> available.

Without no proof or even a reference it sometimes
becomes very hard to believe into someones stories,
you know.

> I do not know why two formats would be mixed on one disk, I suspect so the
> duplicator could find its way on disk to write the non-standard CBM tracks
> blindly.

Ask Pete, I already read about some "techniques" to
save some money. There're systems that have got their
"info track" (directory and such) at the very beginning
of a disk, just like with MS-DOS. CBM has got their info
track inmid a disk.
So if your software item just only needs a couple of
tracks, there is the cost saving possibility to produce
one disk for two or perhaps more systems. If one system
sells a lot better than another, just repackage the disks
and there you go.



Womo
Re: Bounty Bob Strikes Back [message #169800 is a reply to message #169786] Fri, 27 October 2006 09:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Groepaz is currently offline  Groepaz
Messages: 640
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Wolfgang Moser wrote:
>> I do not know why two formats would be mixed on one disk, I suspect so
>> the duplicator could find its way on disk to write the non-standard CBM
>> tracks blindly.
>
> Ask Pete, I already read about some "techniques" to
> save some money. There're systems that have got their
> "info track" (directory and such) at the very beginning
> of a disk, just like with MS-DOS. CBM has got their info
> track inmid a disk.

look at the cp/m system disk for c128 - mfm and gcr format mixed on one disk
=)

--

http://www.hitmen-console.org
http://www.gc-linux.org/docs/yagcd.html
http://www.pokefinder.org
http://ftp.pokefinder.org

Diese heutige Jugend ist von Grund auf verdorben, sie ist böse, gottlos und
faul. Sie wird nie wieder so sein wie die Jugend vorher, und es wird ihr
niemals gelingen, unsere Kultur zu erhalten.
<Babylonische Tontafel, um 3000 v.Chr.>
Re: Bounty Bob Strikes Back [message #169810 is a reply to message #169786] Fri, 27 October 2006 12:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
rebocardo is currently offline  rebocardo
Messages: 142
Registered: December 2004
Karma: 0
Senior Member
> of were run by unixoide systems, far away from PC's.

I do not remember this company. The stand alone PCs were
just plain PCs with (4) 5.25 drives to duplicate disks.
So you could make about 200 disks per hour.

I was going to buy a stand alone (not PC), but, ending up buying
(4) MSD-SD2 with the CLD autocopy ROMS because you could
make 720 disks per hour. The same as the auto duplicator
for 1/4 of the price and it did not lock me into the mercy
of a PC company if a part broke.

> They claimed to use the MSD drives for duplicating their own software.

Yes, it could be used to dupe both CBM and PC disks.

> Are you talking from the Central Point x?..

No, I seem to remember them as Amiga software.

> Without no proof or even a reference it sometimes

Just a quick search

http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctech/2005-May/044324.h tml

http://www.atariage.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=3779

http://sysadminforum.com/t63571.html

My bad saying Manx, it is actually "Aztec". It says MANX on the manual's
covers so that is what most people call it. It cost about $800-1000 back in
the day for the PC cross compiler (6502 for the CBM, Apple, Atari and Z80).
I know it exists, I have it installed on my HD and have the disks and books
in my closet. Some very popular software was cretaed with it.

Just like I have an Extron RGBI 2 SVGA scan converter. It has to be pushing
15 years at least and cheap $100 single function ones were available from
Dartek, way back when.

> just repackage the disks and there you go.

I have software, both disks and tapes with CBM on one side and Atari on the
other. It had more to do with shelf display space and selling the same game
to 2x the audience. It made the software (which were usually marginal
bargain basement type games) more appealing to retailers on slow selling
stuff. I always wondered how they did the tapes with CBM on one side and
Atari on the other.

>> Without no proof or even a reference it sometimes

Well, it would be hard to prove it, but, C-64s were used to run rides and
kisohs at Disney World in FL. If you told most people that they would think
you were crazy. Same as CBMs being used to run power plants.
Re: Bounty Bob Strikes Back [message #169811 is a reply to message #169629] Fri, 27 October 2006 12:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
rebocardo is currently offline  rebocardo
Messages: 142
Registered: December 2004
Karma: 0
Senior Member
> of were run by unixoide systems, far away from PC's.

I do not remember this company. The stand alone PCs were
just plain PCs with (4) 5.25 drives to duplicate disks.
So you could make about 200 disks per hour.

I was going to buy a stand alone (not PC), but, ending up buying
(4) MSD-SD2 with the CLD autocopy ROMS because you could
make 720 disks per hour. The same as the auto duplicator
for 1/4 of the price and it did not lock me into the mercy
of a PC company.

> They claimed to use the MSD drives for duplicating their own software.

Yes, it could be used to dupe both CBM and PC disks.

> Are you talking from the Central Point x?..

No, I seem to remember them as Amiga software.

> Without no proof or even a reference it sometimes

Just a quick search

http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctech/2005-May/044324.h tml

http://www.atariage.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=3779

http://sysadminforum.com/t63571.html

My bad saying Manx, it is actually "Aztec". It says MANX on the manual's
covers so that is what most people call it. It cost about $1000 back in the
day for the PC cross compiler (6502 for the CBM, Apple, Atari and Z80). I
know it exists, I have it installed on my HD and the disks and books in my
closet.

Just like I have an Extron RGBI 2 SVGA scan converter. It has to be pushing
15 years at least and cheap $100 single function ones were available from
Dartek, way back when.

> just repackage the disks and there you go.

I have software, both disks and tapes with CBM on one side and Atari on the
other. It had more to do with shelf display space and selling the same game
to 2x the audience. It made the software (which where usually marginal
bargain basement type games) more appealing to retailers on slow selling
stuff. I always wondered how they did the tapes with CBM on one side and
Atari on the other.

>> Without no proof or even a reference it sometimes

Well, it would be hard to prove it, but, C-64s were used to run rides and
kisohs at Disney World in FL. If you told most people that they would think
you were crazy. Same as CBMs being used to run power plants.
Re: Bounty Bob Strikes Back [message #169822 is a reply to message #169810] Sat, 28 October 2006 05:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wolfgang Moser is currently offline  Wolfgang Moser
Messages: 632
Registered: July 2003
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Hello Reborcado,

rebocardo schrieb:
>> of were run by unixoide systems, far away from PC's.
>
> I do not remember this company. The stand alone PCs were
> just plain PCs with (4) 5.25 drives to duplicate disks.
> So you could make about 200 disks per hour.
>
> I was going to buy a stand alone (not PC), but, ending up buying
> (4) MSD-SD2 with the CLD autocopy ROMS because you could
> make 720 disks per hour. The same as the auto duplicator
> for 1/4 of the price and it did not lock me into the mercy
> of a PC company if a part broke.

do not all these systems require a human "actuator"
to change disks?

When I told from "professional grade duplication
systems" I meant autoloader systems like (along
with their builtin unix controller):

http://www.softpres.org/glossary:trace_machine

Read more about the Freeform disk description
language and something similar used by the SPS:

http://www.softpres.org/wip:2002-07-18

What about that, they could produce alot more than
720 disks per hour for sure :-)

http://www.wrslabs.com/diskequip.htm

More pictures, stories and information about the
Trace Mountain Tracer/ST 3,5" autoloading
duplicator:

http://www.awp1.com/

Unfortunately I couldn't find such informations
about 5,25" systems, the following site mentions
an option kit:
001-43412-01 Tracer/ST 5.25" LD Drive
http://www.ce-s.com/trace.htm


Womo
Re: Bounty Bob Strikes Back [message #169826 is a reply to message #169822] Sat, 28 October 2006 15:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
rebocardo is currently offline  rebocardo
Messages: 142
Registered: December 2004
Karma: 0
Senior Member
> do not all these systems require a human "actuator"
> to change disks?

The PC and MSDs, yes.

You could buy automatic disk duplicators that even applied the labels if you
had the cash.

You could even buy label machines that sprayed the logo and stuff on the
5.25 disks like the type of label found on the Rainbird (advanced art
studio) software. I think that is the
only C= software that used that type of labeling. The advantage was mainly
it did not
require any manual handling, did not squish the disk in the jacket(! big
plus), and was cheap per label done.

If you cared to do some research I think CYMK in Glouster MA and a place
in Middleton MA Rt114 did the spray on label stuff in the USA. I think CYMK
just
sticks to doing promos products for M&Ms and stuff like that now. The other
company
obviously does/did CDs, last time I checked (1998?) they did inkjet spray
edge to edge
on CDs. I imagine that is DVD by now.

All the auto duplicators I saw held a sleeve (I -think- that was 500 disks
inside a
plastic envelope) in a vertical position, not hor. like the machine
pictured. They would
come (duplicator grade) in a long plastic (instead of cardboard) corr. box.
You would
dupe them and then pop them right back into the box to ship out.

There were many disk OEMs along the I-95 lexington area in Massachusetts so
disk duping was a big business. Fuji being one of them. Color disks in bulk
(5k) were only .05-.06 each, which was pretty cheap at the time when the
normal mail order price was $0.25 or more for color.

Plus, you had big software companies in Boston such as Lotus (before
IBM bought them) and Wang that needed 100,000s of disks at a time for
their own in house software.

> (along with their builtin unix controller):

That is fairly new. None of the ones I saw ever ran UNIX. It was not
even on the radar at the time.

> they could produce alot more than 720 disks per hour for sure

I am sure many machines could. I never had the need for more then that so I
never researched or used machines that would have cost more then my house
:-D

I know I have sales material around for the various 5.25 stand alone
duplicators
somewhere. When I find it I will scan it and post about it and send it to
you.

Great links, thanks!
Re: Bounty Bob Strikes Back [message #169833 is a reply to message #169826] Sun, 29 October 2006 12:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wolfgang Moser is currently offline  Wolfgang Moser
Messages: 632
Registered: July 2003
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Hi rebocardo, you wrote:
> [...]
>> they could produce alot more than 720 disks per hour for sure
>
> I am sure many machines could. I never had the need for more then that so I
> never researched or used machines that would have cost more then my house
> :-D
>
> I know I have sales material around for the various 5.25 stand alone
> duplicators
> somewhere. When I find it I will scan it and post about it and send it to
> you.

until now I only got aware of the Trace Mountain
Tracer/ST duplication systems. I'm not too deep
into computer history, but more of the technical
aspects of historic things. It would be fine to
find other professional grade fully automatic
diskette duplicators and how they got and get
their job done.


Womo
Re: Bounty Bob Strikes Back [message #169847 is a reply to message #169810] Sun, 29 October 2006 21:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Pete Rittwage is currently offline  Pete Rittwage
Messages: 444
Registered: March 2005
Karma: 0
Senior Member
>> just repackage the disks and there you go.
>
> I have software, both disks and tapes with CBM on one side and Atari on the
> other. It had more to do with shelf display space and selling the same game
> to 2x the audience. It made the software (which were usually marginal
> bargain basement type games) more appealing to retailers on slow selling
> stuff. I always wondered how they did the tapes with CBM on one side and
> Atari on the other.

I have several images where there is Atari 800 and C64 on the same side
of the disk. I guess Atari didn't need track 18, and CBM disks really
only _need_ track 18.

Many Mastertronic titles, a few Datasoft titles, and even found an
original Gateway to Apshai with both Atari and C64 data on the same disk
side.




--
-
Pete Rittwage
http://rittwage.com

C64 Preservation Project
http://c64preservation.com
Re: Bounty Bob Strikes Back [message #169920 is a reply to message #169764] Tue, 31 October 2006 13:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Jerry Kurtz is currently offline  Jerry Kurtz
Messages: 244
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Bounty Bob Strikes Back was in deed released by Big Five Software. I
have two boxed copies to show for it (one mint/sealed).

The really cool part is that they used the Atari 5200's box for the C64
version. The side of the box still says Atari 5200, but on the front,
there are stickers stating it contains the C64 disk version.

Jerry



Bruce Tomlin wrote:
> In article <Xns986680F669CC2thewisesenternet@198.186.192.136>,
> thewises <thewises@enter.net> wrote:
>
>>> In fact, I didn't realize that they did anything for the C64 until
>>> this thread, and I don't see a mention on their site
>>> http://www.bigfivesoftware.com/ . Was the C64 version a port done by
>>> someone else or what?
>>
>> Miner 2049er was actually on many systems. Here's the list:
>>
>> Apple II (made by Micro Fun; this was released before the Atari version)
>>
>> Atari 2600 (Tigervision; there were two separate cartridges made of this,
>> with 3 levels each)
>>
>> Colecovision (Micro Fun; has one additional level)
>>
>> Commodore 64 (Reston Software)
>>
>> VIC-20 (Reston Software)
>>
>> TI/99-4A (Tigervision; 8 levels)
>>
>> IBM PC (Micro Fun)
>>
>> And finally Mindscape did a Gameboy remake in 1992. This version is a sort
>> of hybrid, with the first two levels being from Miner 2049er and the rest
>> taken from BBSB.
>
> Well, there you go. None of those other versions weren't done by Big
> Five, which was my point. And none of them were for the TRS-80.
Re: Bounty Bob Strikes Back [message #169921 is a reply to message #169786] Tue, 31 October 2006 13:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Jerry Kurtz is currently offline  Jerry Kurtz
Messages: 244
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
It was Central Point Software, makers of Copy II PC, Copy II C64, and I
think an Apple version too, that maide an Option Board that could be
installed inside of a PC to aid in duplication efforts.

The "Copy II PC Option Board" turns up on eBay often enough.

Jerry
Re: Bounty Bob Strikes Back [message #169922 is a reply to message #169921] Tue, 31 October 2006 13:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
lkseitz is currently offline  lkseitz
Messages: 12
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Junior Member
In article <1162318120.319139.290240@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
Jerry Kurtz <jerrykurtz@earthlink.net> wrote:
> It was Central Point Software, makers of Copy II PC, Copy II C64, and I
> think an Apple version too,

Yes, it was called Copy II Plus. I believe it was their original Copy
II program, hence the name.

--
lkseitz (Lee K. Seitz) .at. hiwaay @dot@ net
"All generalizations are false, including this one."
-- Mark Twain
Re: Bounty Bob Strikes Back [message #169924 is a reply to message #169922] Tue, 31 October 2006 15:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wolfgang Moser is currently offline  Wolfgang Moser
Messages: 632
Registered: July 2003
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Hello Jerry, Lee, et al,

Lee K. Seitz schrieb:
> In article <1162318120.319139.290240@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> Jerry Kurtz <jerrykurtz@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> It was Central Point Software, makers of Copy II PC, Copy II C64, and I
>> think an Apple version too,
>
> Yes, it was called Copy II Plus. I believe it was their original Copy
> II program, hence the name.

now that you both mention the name "Copy II".

Wasn't Jim Drew, later maker, seller or at least
marketer of Utilities Unlimited Supercard-Plus,
involved into creating Central Point's Copy II for
the C64?

Was this the location where he learned about
writing backup tools or such?


Womo
Re: Bounty Bob Strikes Back [message #169926 is a reply to message #169924] Tue, 31 October 2006 17:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Pete Rittwage is currently offline  Pete Rittwage
Messages: 444
Registered: March 2005
Karma: 0
Senior Member
I think he was involved with Di-Sector. Not sure how far back his stuff
goes. He always denies that he is "that" Jim Drew.


--
-
Pete Rittwage
http://rittwage.com

C64 Preservation Project
http://c64preservation.com


Wolfgang Moser wrote:
> Hello Jerry, Lee, et al,
>
> Lee K. Seitz schrieb:
>> In article <1162318120.319139.290240@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
>> Jerry Kurtz <jerrykurtz@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> It was Central Point Software, makers of Copy II PC, Copy II C64, and I
>>> think an Apple version too,
>>
>> Yes, it was called Copy II Plus. I believe it was their original Copy
>> II program, hence the name.
>
> now that you both mention the name "Copy II".
>
> Wasn't Jim Drew, later maker, seller or at least
> marketer of Utilities Unlimited Supercard-Plus,
> involved into creating Central Point's Copy II for
> the C64?
>
> Was this the location where he learned about
> writing backup tools or such?
>
>
> Womo
Re: Bounty Bob Strikes Back [message #169939 is a reply to message #169926] Wed, 01 November 2006 05:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wolfgang Moser is currently offline  Wolfgang Moser
Messages: 632
Registered: July 2003
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Hello Pete,

Pete Rittwage schrieb:
> I think he was involved with Di-Sector. Not sure how far back his stuff
> goes. He always denies that he is "that" Jim Drew.

there is an interview from Jim Drew to "Amiga Update"
from 1996 where he tells his business life as he
experienced it:

http://www.globaldialog.com/%7Ebandr/AU/brad/960927

There I got things about Drew, Copy II and Central
Point from.


But yes, there also is the "customers view" of things
and I personally prefer to refer to a usenet posting
dating back to 1987:

http://groups.google.de/group/comp.sys.amiga/msg/e3d7f90a342 69e2a

Since 1992 Jim Drew seems to have "discovered" Usenet
for his own purposes, as he takes part on discussions:

http://groups.google.de/group/comp.sys.amiga.emulations/msg/ d524835cd6efdcd4
http://groups.google.de/group/comp.sys.amiga.emulations/msg/ 74a5d444b4b7ffdc


The 1987-Posting is my personal favorite, moreover I
would like to browse an archive from former Q-Link
as I can do with Google-Groups. Maybe there are some
more nice things to find on.


Womo
Re: Bounty Bob Strikes Back [message #169973 is a reply to message #169924] Wed, 01 November 2006 19:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Golan Klinger is currently offline  Golan Klinger
Messages: 559
Registered: December 2004
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Wolfgang Moser wrote:

> Wasn't Jim Drew, later maker, seller or at least marketer of Utilities
> Unlimited Supercard-Plus, involved into creating Central Point's Copy II
> for the C64?

Ugh. Please don't mention the name of that liar. I would like to 'emplant'
my foot in his ass.

--
Golan Klinger
Dark is the suede that mows like a harvest.
Re: Bounty Bob Strikes Back [message #170019 is a reply to message #169973] Thu, 02 November 2006 09:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Jerry Kurtz is currently offline  Jerry Kurtz
Messages: 244
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Blame the author of the lies -- the owner of UU, not the guy that tried
to live up to the owner's lies.

Golan Klinger wrote:
> Wolfgang Moser wrote:
>
>> Wasn't Jim Drew, later maker, seller or at least marketer of Utilities
>> Unlimited Supercard-Plus, involved into creating Central Point's Copy II
>> for the C64?
>
> Ugh. Please don't mention the name of that liar. I would like to 'emplant'
> my foot in his ass.
>
> --
> Golan Klinger
> Dark is the suede that mows like a harvest.
Re: Bounty Bob Strikes Back [message #170026 is a reply to message #170019] Thu, 02 November 2006 13:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Golan Klinger is currently offline  Golan Klinger
Messages: 559
Registered: December 2004
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Jerry Kurtz wrote:

> Blame the author of the lies -- the owner of UU, not the guy that tried
> to live up to the owner's lies.

I would take Jim Drew's soap opera-like sob story with a grain of salt
because Jim was a master at convincing people people that he was on the
up and up when, as history shows, he was not. With the passage of time
I can longer remember all the details but what I do remember is a series
of promises, disappointments, ridiculous explanations, and questionable
(I'll stop short short of saying criminal) behaviour. Jim Drew was not
the innocent victim in the whole UU/Emplant saga as he would have us all
believe and he never apologized (AFAIK) for his actions.

--
Golan Klinger
Dark is the suede that mows like a harvest.
Re: Bounty Bob Strikes Back [message #170036 is a reply to message #170026] Thu, 02 November 2006 18:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Pete Rittwage is currently offline  Pete Rittwage
Messages: 444
Registered: March 2005
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Golan Klinger wrote:
> Jerry Kurtz wrote:
>
>> Blame the author of the lies -- the owner of UU, not the guy that tried
>> to live up to the owner's lies.
>
> I would take Jim Drew's soap opera-like sob story with a grain of salt
> because Jim was a master at convincing people people that he was on the
> up and up when, as history shows, he was not. With the passage of time
> I can longer remember all the details but what I do remember is a series
> of promises, disappointments, ridiculous explanations, and questionable
> (I'll stop short short of saying criminal) behaviour. Jim Drew was not
> the innocent victim in the whole UU/Emplant saga as he would have us all
> believe and he never apologized (AFAIK) for his actions.
>

I worked for an Amiga dealer when the whole Emplant episode occurred.
It was initially shipped with non-working software. I think it worked
on only the 2000 and not the 3000/4000 and they admitted as much. It
was eventually fixed within a couple of months and was a great working
and selling product after that. The bigger issue was the problem of
buying the Macintosh ROM chips to put on the board so it would work. :)

I have a collection of about every copy program ever made for the C64.
The SuperCard and SuperCard+ software will copy pretty much *anything*
and it does not do so by cracking the software with "parameters" like
Renegade/Maverick. He also later wrote a Macintosh emulator for the PC
that ran very well on even a 486 or low-end Pentium.

My point is we may be able to fault him for shipping products before
they are done, but they eventually fulfilled all the promises and were
the best available at the time. Whether the problems were because of
him or the owner of the company, we'll never know.


-
Pete Rittwage
http://rittwage.com

C64 Preservation Project
http://c64preservation.com
Re: Bounty Bob Strikes Back [message #170037 is a reply to message #169682] Thu, 02 November 2006 18:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: bluebirdpod

>
> as Pete told, he could not find any copier or
> parameter for BBSB! except the one on Version
> 3 of the Supercard-Plus.
>
> So I believe hime that Maverick is not able to
> copy BBSB!. Nevermind, since this all doesn't
> help in preservation with MNib, Pete definetly
> needs to analyze this beast bit by bit.
>
>
> Womo


This is the only UNCOPIABLE program on earth for the Commodore 64,
without
cracking/ripping it, there is supposidly no way to make a 1:1 copy of
this program
I would love to play with it myself, if I can find a copy someday, been
looking.,

-BB
Re: Bounty Bob Strikes Back [message #170066 is a reply to message #170037] Fri, 03 November 2006 09:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wolfgang Moser is currently offline  Wolfgang Moser
Messages: 632
Registered: July 2003
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Hello bluebirdpod, you wrote about Bounty Strikes Back! [BBSB!]:
>
> This is the only UNCOPIABLE program on earth for the Commodore 64,
> without
> cracking/ripping it, there is supposidly no way to make a 1:1 copy of
> this program

hmmmm, if that's game protection reveals to soo good,
why the heck wasn't it used for any other games. The
developer of that protection seems to have missed a
big potential in making some money it seems.

> I would love to play with it myself, if I can find a copy someday, been
> looking.,

I'm sure that Pete will keep informing us, when he
got down to it.

It is so great nowadays having his project C64PP,
where we all get enabled to _recognize_ such weird
things.



Womo
Re: Bounty Bob Strikes Back [message #170075 is a reply to message #170066] Fri, 03 November 2006 18:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anders Carlsson is currently offline  Anders Carlsson
Messages: 776
Registered: July 2003
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Wolfgang Moser <wnhp@d81.de.invalid> writes:

> Hello bluebirdpod, you wrote about Bounty Strikes Back! [BBSB!]:
>
>> This is the only UNCOPIABLE program on earth for the Commodore 64,
>> without cracking/ripping it, there is supposidly no way to make a
>> 1:1 copy of this program.
>
> hmmmm, if that's game protection reveals to soo good, why the heck
> wasn't it used for any other games. The developer of that protection
> seems to have missed a big potential in making some money it seems.

I'm not so sure the software companies were afraid of 1:1 copies of
their games (e.g. for illegal resale), but rather cracks as a whole.
It means, if the game can be ripped, singlefiled and saved on its
own, it doesn't matter how well protected the disk is - the game
will be spread via crackers' networks anyway.

--
Anders Carlsson
Re: Bounty Bob Strikes Back [message #170079 is a reply to message #170037] Fri, 03 November 2006 19:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Jerry Kurtz is currently offline  Jerry Kurtz
Messages: 244
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
I don't know if this is uncopyable as SuperCard+ does list a copier for
it. I just think the original disk is rather rare and hard to come by.

I have three boxed originals -- one mint/sealed, one opened, and one EU
release. Pete has the original disk to my opened US release. The EU
disk appears to be the same exact thing, so that's the one I'm toying
around with.

There are two different sellers on eBay that every so often try to sell
the original disk (no box/docs). I haven't seem them listed in a
while, so I don't know if they sold them, but if they pop up again, I
may be tempted to go ahead and bid on one so I can permanently make a
donation of the disk to the C64 preservation project.

True, the game can be cracked, and is already obtainable that way, and
the original EU tape release of the game can be had easily enough, so
its not like nobody can play it.

I think most of us are intrigued that its a rather early game with
great copy protection.

Jerry



bluebirdpod wrote:
>>
>> as Pete told, he could not find any copier or
>> parameter for BBSB! except the one on Version
>> 3 of the Supercard-Plus.
>>
>> So I believe hime that Maverick is not able to
>> copy BBSB!. Nevermind, since this all doesn't
>> help in preservation with MNib, Pete definetly
>> needs to analyze this beast bit by bit.
>>
>>
>> Womo
>
>
> This is the only UNCOPIABLE program on earth for the Commodore 64,
> without
> cracking/ripping it, there is supposidly no way to make a 1:1 copy of
> this program
> I would love to play with it myself, if I can find a copy someday, been
> looking.,
>
> -BB
Re: Bounty Bob Strikes Back [message #170088 is a reply to message #170066] Fri, 03 November 2006 23:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Pete Rittwage is currently offline  Pete Rittwage
Messages: 444
Registered: March 2005
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Wolfgang Moser wrote:
> Hello bluebirdpod, you wrote about Bounty Strikes Back! :
>>
>> This is the only UNCOPIABLE program on earth for the Commodore 64,
>> without
>> cracking/ripping it, there is supposidly no way to make a 1:1 copy of
>> this program
>
> hmmmm, if that's game protection reveals to soo good,
> why the heck wasn't it used for any other games. The
> developer of that protection seems to have missed a
> big potential in making some money it seems.
>
>> I would love to play with it myself, if I can find a copy someday, been
>> looking.,
>
> I'm sure that Pete will keep informing us, when he
> got down to it.
>
> It is so great nowadays having his project C64PP,
> where we all get enabled to _recognize_ such weird
> things.
>

Well, I've analyzed it tonight and Bounty Bob definitely uses true
halftrack protection. I rewrote n2g and got halftrack support working
properly and it now loads further than it did before. It reads about 4
segments, then moves to track 1.5 and then freezes.

The disk appears to be mastered such that 1/2 of the track is written
out, then the head is stepped out one halftrack and the other 1/2 is
written, etc. This is similar to the "Spiradisk" protection on the
Apple ][, just not quite as extreme (the Apple could do quarter-tracks).

So we're getting somewhere for use in emulators, anyway. It can't be
copied without a completely custom routine.

-
Pete Rittwage
http://rittwage.com

C64 Preservation Project
http://c64preservation.com
Re: Bounty Bob Strikes Back [message #170097 is a reply to message #170075] Sat, 04 November 2006 05:47 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Wolfgang Moser is currently offline  Wolfgang Moser
Messages: 632
Registered: July 2003
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Anders Carlsson schrieb:
> Wolfgang Moser <wnhp@d81.de.invalid> writes:
>> hmmmm, if that's game protection reveals to soo good, why the heck
>> wasn't it used for any other games. The developer of that protection
>> seems to have missed a big potential in making some money it seems.
>
> I'm not so sure the software companies were afraid of 1:1 copies of
> their games (e.g. for illegal resale), but rather cracks as a whole.
> It means, if the game can be ripped, singlefiled and saved on its
> own, it doesn't matter how well protected the disk is - the game
> will be spread via crackers' networks anyway.

yeah, you're right. On the other side why did they,
knowing that from above, protect their disks with
any disk protection.

I would argue the following then. A good disk
protection prevents the initial cracker some time
(hours, maybe days) from finishing his "work". No
one really wants to play with an original disk and
probably destroying it. If the protected areas
don't contain any data needed for the game at all,
then a plain disk copy may be enough for cracking
(I'm leaving out freezing here, since some old
"heroes" won't accept that technique as
"cracking", simply because it doesn't hurt that
much).
If the disk protection comes with a good program
protection (runtime code protection like antidebug
and antifreeze code) and if the protected disk
areas contain some (encryption) keys, a cracker
(the initial one) may have been delayed a lot so
that the distributor would've had some more time
to sell the game.


Womo
Pages (2): [1  2    »]  Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Previous Topic: OT: THE ULTIMATE INTERVIEW WITH GARY GYGAX
Next Topic: The History of Commodore Computers" poster
Goto Forum:
  

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Fri Mar 29 03:16:03 EDT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.04498 seconds