Jacques Vrey wrote: > Just an observation I would like to share: ... etc., describing how to "crack" the demo expiry date on a certain product. Frankly, I think that's just a trifle RUDE! Over and above the current thread regarding morality of software piracy, with particular reference to "beta" or "demonstrator" software, Glen Benson has indicated that a "cracked demo" or "easily cracked demo" is quite a good advertisement, being a sort of de-facto shareware, and he also indicated that technical people such as ourselves might well be expected to "crack" such protection. If I read that correctly, then the "crackable" aspect is to be considered a competency test for the trial user. Blabbing the details in this case however is far more of an insult to the author than the user who having done the "cracking" himself, develops an affinity for the software and if he finds it worthwile to use (i.e., uses it to his own profit), proceeds to purchase it. The author having offered the software under certain "demo" conditions and in the knowledge that it CAN and WILL be "cracked" (well, .INI files are a pretty easy challenge!) has been exceedingly generous, which generosity is abused by the trivialisation of someone broadcasting the answer! Very un-sportsmanlike! Cheers, Paul B.