![]() |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
think of your customers!
like a lot of others i will state the same thing: they both can be reversed, cracked, unpacked, and anything else. this goes for any self-decrypting protector. it's just a fact.
i would consider sticking with aspr simply because it will give your customers a more pleasing experience. aspr already offers what you need, mainly inline encryption of specific 'registered only' functions AND more importantly speed & stability. if you use this part correctly, then that's really all you need. sure, someone can card your program and release it, but that can happen with armadillo or any other protector as well. i am a registered owner of a few apps that went to armadillo and i can't stand to use them now. slow startups, etc. (so i just have to unpack them to make them run better ) not to mention that sometimes these apps will just not run with a strange "general extraction error" msg. this may be because of olly running previously or something, but it's still a major inconvenience. just do a google search for ppl trying to run armadillo trial apps and never can.i also own some aspr packed apps. i never unpack these (except just to peek under the hood). they startup quickly and run without issue. i guess the point is to also consider the end-user experience before making your decision on anything. and also realise that ANY protection can and will be circumvented if someone with the talent wishes to do so. |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| ASProtect 1.x vs 2.x protection strength | smartins | General Discussion | 7 | 12-02-2004 00:21 |