VMware

This Question is Answered

1 2 Previous Next 20 Replies Last post: Jul 10, 2009 10:08 AM by jmattson  

VMWF debugger possibly causing problems in Win 98 SE? posted: Jul 7, 2009 12:34 PM

Click to view HapK's profile Enthusiast 23 posts since
Jul 2, 2009
Hi,

http://communities.vmware.com/message/1303409#1303409

In the above referenced thread I have been asking why my Oxford English Dictionary 2nd ed version 2 can install and run on Parallels but not in VMWare Fusion. Apologies if you have read any of this before, but I have narrowed the question, so I am closing the other threads and focusing on the debugger question in this thread. It's my last hope.

FYI I am running VMWF on iMac 24" 3.06ghz (Leopard 10.5.7) with Nvidia GeForce 8800 GS video card. After some hiccups I have manged to get my USB devices recognized in Win 98 se in VMWF. All is working just great--much better than on Parallels! EXCEPT my legally purchased OED CD-ROM (which has the atrocious C-Dilla Safedisc 1 copy protection) fails authorization on VMWare Fusion but passes with no problems on Parallels. (This version of the OED works in Win 98 se and I do not want to buy another Windoze operating system anyway.)The C-Dilla Safedisc copy protection is made by Macrovision and is most commonly used on gaming software.

I have seen on the internet some mention that any presence of debugging software--whether active or not-- will activate the Safedisc copy protection and prevent authorization. (Apparently hackers use debugging software to get around copy protection??? I have no clue. ) Parallels does not have debugging software as far as I know. VMWare Fusion does. Is there any way to remove the debugging software from VMWF? Or does anyone have any experience with trying to get games with C-dilla Safedisc to run on VMWare Fusion?

Please if you know, help me out. The OED cost almost $400 (it's 20 print volumes on one disk). There's no logical reason why it should not work in VMWare Fusion, yet install in Parallels. (If you're asking why not just run it in Parallels? It's because Parallels runs Win 98 Se very badly (their virtual tools will not install)--the display is barely readable --not great for a dictionary!)

Thank you

Click to view jmattson's profile Master 1,225 posts since
Mar 29, 2006
The most likely explanation is that C-Dilla is checking for execution in a virtual machine and refusing authorization based on that. You should check your EULA for this software and see if you are in violation of the agreement if you install the software in a virtual machine.

There are many ways of checking for execution in a virtual machine. Under binary translation, software can detect the truncated segment limits that are used to protect the hypervisor from the guest OS. You can get around this by forcing Fusion to use hardware-assisted virtualization (as Parallels does) for this guest. Just add the following to your VM configuration file:
monitor.virtual_exec = "hardware"

You should remove this setting once your installation is complete. Fusion defaults to binary translation for older Windows guests both for performance reasons and to work around some guest OS bugs that cannot be worked around using hardware-assisted virtualization.

The copy protection software may also be looking for the existence of the VMware backdoor, which is not present in Parallels. You can get around this by restricting access to the backdoor with the following configuration option:
monitor_control.restrict_backdoor = "TRUE"

You should remove this setting once your installation is complete. VMware Tools will not be able to run in your guest when this option is enabled.
Click to view RDPetruska's profile Guru 15,877 posts since
Jan 11, 2005

Your OS is trying to be "helpful" when in fact all it is doing is "confusing" you - by making the .vmwarevm folder appear like a single file. Either drill into the .vmwarevm bundle to see the files, or do yourself a huge favor and just delete the .vmwarevm extension from the folder name, and it will appear like the folder that it in fact IS! <rant on> stupid Apple design!</rant off>
Click to view jmattson's profile Master 1,225 posts since
Mar 29, 2006
Did this solve your problem? If so, which of the config options did you need?

For Windows 98, the virtual_exec option is pretty safe to leave in the configuration file all of the time.

If you need to restrict the backdoor, you'd have to play suspend/resume games to be able to use VMware Tools.
Click to view RDPetruska's profile Guru 15,877 posts since
Jan 11, 2005

Just an information if you don't already know it. You can comment out lines in the vmx file by prefixing them with a pound sign (#). You don't have to actually remove the line. Of course, for any edits to be effective, the VM must be powered off - and as JMattson said, if you need to switch between the backdoor on and off, you will need to play the suspend/edit file/resume game. But you don't have to completely remove the line from the file, at least.
Click to view Bob Zimmerman's profile Hot Shot 259 posts since
Dec 22, 2006
One potentially relevant question that I did not see asked: Have you tested the authorization without the backdoor line in the vmx file?

The application was evidently written specifically to check for VMware, but it is possible that that check is only done when you install it, and not at every authorization.
Click to view Bob Zimmerman's profile Hot Shot 259 posts since
Dec 22, 2006
This is hardly exclusive to Apple. Take a look at the docx file format. It's a zip with the actual data files in it. That's just the first example off the top of my head. I've seen plenty of files that are just gzip archives of the actual data, tars (or similar) of the actual data, and so forth. The reason for this is that it's useful. It makes it easier to work with files when they're not poorly-documented binary blobs. Rather than make a new file format, you just stuff a bunch of existing ones into a folder or archive of some sort. Users can still treat it just like they used to treat the binary blob formats; as a single file rather than a folder of separate ones. It complicates edge cases, but only marginally. Everyone wins.

In short, grow up.
Click to view etung's profile Guru 11,094 posts since
Oct 15, 2006
You think that the C-Dilla Safedisc 1 authorization software from the year 2000 is checking for VMWare specifically?

Yes, that's what I think. VMware pioneered x86 virtualization, and so a number of programs (unfairly, IMO) single us out. Quick Googling doesn't show if Parallels even had a product in 2000 - it's hard to blacklist something that doesn't exist yet.
Click to view wila's profile Virtuoso 3,266 posts since
Jun 27, 2006
But in the end I may have to break down and buy the new Native Mac version 4.0 of the OED just because of the constant pain of having always to reauthorize from the CD at each restart.
You might be able to clone the disk to an image file on your local disk and then set your Virtual Machine to look at that CDrom file instead of the original disk.
I have no idea if there is a protection on the CDrom itself that would prevent this from working, but you can always try.
See for example here: http://www.thejackol.com/2006/03/11/create-isos-in-os-x/ for one way on how to create an ISO file image of your CD.


--
Wil
_____________________________________________________
VI-Toolkit & scripts wiki at http://www.vi-toolkit.com

VMware Developer

SDKs, APIs, Videos, Learn and much more in the Developer community.

Learn More

Developer Sample Code

Increase your developer productivity with VMware API sample code.

Learn More

VMworld Sessions & Labs

Online access to the latest VMworld Sessions & Labs and online services.

Learn more

Purchase PSO Credits Online

Purchase credits to redeem training and consulting services online.

Buy Now

Community Hardware Software

View reported configurations or report your own.

Learn More

VMware vSphere

Come witness the next giant leap in virtualization.

Register Today

Communities