how to run with 2 cd keys?

[TheJarulf]

In fact, if one of the major benefits is prohibiting proxy usage, then it should be seen as a form of anti-cheating, as I believe Maphack is a proxy.

Ehh, not sure what you really mean by "proxy" here. But if you look what maphack do, it basically insert code into the diablo one (and modify existing code). This of course can be done directly editing the files on the hard disc, although that means less room for control. In addition, it is easier to get arround integrity checks if you modify the code on the fly in memory. Maphack also have some other features but I really don't keep up with what capabilities it has or how it can work since I am not looking at Diablo II any more myself so my knowledge about the program and how it works is in part old.

So, I'll ask the question: Is there a file, program, process, or other some-such (third-party, Microsoft-released, or otherwise) to secure processes in a way that allows a program to run properly on non-XP OSes but prevents other programs - proxies, a second instance of Diablo II, etc. - from being able to detect it?

You mean other versions of Windows or other operating systems (I believe Diablo only also works on the Mac, although I am sure it can probably be run under Linux with some sort of emulator or whatever there is.

To your actual question, I really have no idea, don't think you can "just run a program" and get such protection since one can always then just run another program to counter it. I am also not that skilled with Windows to know much about such details and if it is even possible in XP (apart from user switching).

 

[Ax2Grind]

A bit more clarification

I might be getting ahead of myself, but from what I can fathom, you're trying to say one of the two. Please correct me if I'm wrong or put it too bluntly.

1) Running multiple installations of Diablo II through Fast User switching is hacking.

-OR-

2) Multiple Diablo II loading programs should be legal hacks since they simply allow you to do what XP users already can.

I'm just trying to find out what you're trying to prove, that's all. :lol:

'Hacking' has been misused ever since knowledgable programmers started doing malicious things with code.

The main argument here is that XP prohibits a program running on its system from seeing other programs, in this case through something defined as 'User Switching.' This might be argued as simply a much larger type of proxy (each user essentially being a different proxy), but that's not the point here... yet. If prohibiting a program from seeing others that it, itself, hasn't called (which directly counters a check in this game's executable) isn't wrong and can be used without violating the EULA or other TOU, then why can't the same thing be added to other OSes and similarly be within EULA/TOU?

Just because it's an officially released product from a major software company doesn't make it valid to use. Likewise, just because it's included as part of an OS supported by Blizzard doesn't mean that a third party, which creates a similar adaptation for other OSes, is promoting or encouraging cheating or the violation of the game's EULA/TOU. Either prohibiting a second instance from seeing the first is violation or it isn't, period. If it is a violation, then any method used to do this is a violation and XP is an illegal OS, as far as Blizzard is concerned.

Assuming it's legal, which this site has stated is and because Blizzard supports it, then it's really a matter of how, not whether, it's done. A proxy can prohibit the second instance from seeing the first, but do all proxies violate the EULA/TOU of the game? If so, then that particular 'how' isn't legal. Obviously, if it's an OS adaptation that allows it under XP then an adaptation can be made for other OSes, including Windows, Linux, FreeBSD, Unix, MacOS and any others I've forgotten. The questions are:

If such an action, the simple prohibition of the second instance from seeing the first, isn't a EULA/TOU violation (countering a measure directly implemented by Blizzard to prevent two instances from running on the same computer), then such an adaptation for other OSes is also not a violation Does one exist, and does such an adaptation violate the respective OSes EULA/TOU if not included/supported by the manufacturer (and if it is a violation of OS documents, then is that also not discussable here)?​

The entire point of the check was to prohibit multiple instances, and if a new OS was released that allowed such (XP), then Blizzard was faced with a choice: refuse support of XP due to its user-switching function directly countering multiple-instance checking, or support XP and all the features it comes with. Obviously, it chose the latter, probably from an entirely financial standpoint, but in 1.10 it didn't take out the MIC for other OSes. This means one of two things:

• Blizzard is silently encouraging people to buy a new product (an OS, but that isn't truly relevent) in order to get more out of a game they still support but are tired of fixing due to its many flaws, or;
• Blizzard is no longer concerned about the MIC and whether people run multiple instances on the same machine, but can't be bothered to take out the MIC or, to such an extent, help others achieve the same versatility and functionality as XP users.

This means, as far as they're concerned, we are allowed to run two instances on one computer as long as it's Windows XP, but to hell with everyone else. Doesn't that sound incredibly demeaning to anyone, and further evidence they don't give a damn about us? Before you answer, don't put words in my mouth, as I'm not using this as an excuse to break the EULA/TOU.

 

[TheJarulf]

If such an action, the simple prohibition of the second instance from seeing the first, isn't a EULA/TOU violation (countering a measure directly implemented by Blizzard to prevent two instances from running on the same computer), then such an adaptation for other OSes is also not a violation​

The entire point of the check was to prohibit multiple instances

Just a small comment.

The fact that one check for an allready running copy of ones program (not at all something typical for just Blizzard or games in general) has very little to do with security or anything like that. So, although probably technically and linguistically correct, I would still not say that Blizzard is actively preventing you from running two copies or that the whole point of the check is to prohibit it. It is to avoid it since it would probably have technical issues with how the program runns, handle resources and such that they might then have to handle.

So it is not about supporting it or not or allowing it or not, it is because it was a decision on how to handle the program in the Windows environment. They picked this way. I think you are overanalyzing the situation and trying to find motives and reasons that does not exists.

 

[Ax2Grind]

I understand, but I'm not trying to figure out why

Just a small comment.

The fact that one check for an allready running copy of ones program (not at all something typical for just Blizzard or games in general) has very little to do with security or anything like that. So, although probably technically and linguistically correct, I would still not say that Blizzard is actively preventing you from running two copies or that the whole point of the check is to prohibit it. It is to avoid it since it would probably have technical issues with how the program runns, handle resources and such that they might then have to handle.

So it is not about supporting it or not or allowing it or not, it is because it was a decision on how to handle the program in the Windows environment. They picked this way. I think you are overanalyzing the situation and trying to find motives and reasons that does not exists.

In fact, the 'why' is something I've been specifically trying to avoid talking about. There are many ways to do things in almost any software environment, and maybe that's why I believe they took an active part in choosing this way. Then again, the way they chose to do other things in this game appear to be heavily flawed, as well, but it's that concept I couldn't take for granted (even now I'm still giving Blizzard the benefit of the doubt, I have no idea why).

I'm also aware that this program is an enormous resource hog, as I frequently exceed a half-gig of memory usage total while playing. This takes into account all processes running, but a second instance could push the limits of even this system. Still, this leads to the concept that inventory management should've been something they learned about in D1, and apparantly haven't by not creating some sort of universal stash or such (quoting articles that have been written here). This digresses from the topic, though, and that topic is:

Is there some sort of adaptation that can cloak this MIC from a second installation without violating the EULA/TOU? With all the 'hackers' out there you'd think it was possible by now, instead of creating pure cheats. Also, why hasn't (or have they) Blizzard addressed this issue and given suggestions on how to adapt to it themselves? Seems they'd see it was a mistake by now and try helping people while staying within the EULA/TOU (yes, I know this is Blizzard we're talking about, no need to remind me).

 

[Superhal]

cool i wasn't really paying attention to this thread as i thought it would just be a discussion about using 2 comps. but, i have windows xp, and 2 copies of Lod (i just couldn't find the original cdkey, so i had to buy it again.)

some questions:
1. without additional software, would i have to have both cd's in the comp at the same time? (i do have 2 cd drives in this comp.)

2. are you still suceptible to realm downs? if so, shouldn't both instances be banned if the ip is being banned and you are on a single comp?

3. can you have both users running at the same time? i have two monitors too. (what can i say, i like twins.)

[edit]

4. if i can't find the original cd key, can i get it from a previous installation? the old hd i used with d2 died so i'm not using it in this computer. i can still get some limited info off it, which may include the cd key. is it software based or does it have to be typed in?

 

[carrothers]

Ax2Grind - What you've said is very valid, and proposes a grand irony for us all.

If I had to analyze the entirety of the scenario, I'd break it down something like this.

1) Blizzard DOES support Windows XP.
2) Blizzard probably doesn't like that Fast User Switching "avoids" the MIC.
3) Blizzard DEFINITELY does not support third-party programs.
4) Blizzard THEREFORE does not support D2Loaders.

What we have at this point is this:
MULTI-LOADING with Windows XP = OK
MULTI-LOADING with 3rd Party Help = NOT OK

Let's take a look at this site:

1) Diabloii.net DOES support Windows XP (it's not against the rules).
2) Diabloii.net DEFINITELY does not support third-party programs.
3) Diabloii.net THEREFORE does not support D2Loaders.

Basically, I'll boil this down to my final point. Blizzard doesn't care about Diablo II enough to create a patch that at least prevents Windows XP from multi-loading. Heck, they don't even care enough to implement more stiff anti-botting measures.

I don't necessairly know what you're trying to prove yet, because you haven't directly said. Although, no matter what you're trying to prove, it's still going to be the strange irony that Windows XP IS NOT a hack, and other programs that do THE EXACT SAME THING on other operating systems (thus making it fair) ARE hacks. Hacks = bad, XP = good. It's a horrible irony, but still, it's the way life is.

Personally, I'll come out and say what I think and am trying to prove in this thread. I'm personally FOR Windows XP, and AGAINST hacking. I know, it's the crappy double standard that the rules/EULA/TOU create. The reason I ascribe to this pool of thought is that I don't care about fairness. Personally, I've never double loaded with Windows XP (I don't own multiple CD Keys). While I don't do it, I'll still be here to help those who want to double load using Windows XP.

That's just my stance on the issue, let the flaming or whatever begin. :thumbsup:

 

[TheJarulf]

You can. Either if your installation can still work in some way (registry issues would most likely make it not work, tho...) then you can DL a program that picks up the keys as they are sent to blizz servers for verification. I don't think I'm allowed to link to the program itself, but I _can_ tell you that you can google some key words that you can think out with using very little fantasy, and find it.

Or, you could try to find the keys themselves in the MPQ files. I have never done that (my installation was working when I lost my keys) but it *should* be possible. Although the keys might be encrypted, which makes for quite some work to get them out of there.

This last method sounds much more attractive to me and, although a completely subjective view, I feel it much safer. At least in the past, all programs have been of the type that extract it from the mpq files. Not sure about the one needing you to connect to Blizzard for it, have never seen such a program although I see it frequently now. It is possible it is done as a more generic way that works for all their games but not sure. I would still try to find one that gets it from the mpq files archieve instead.

 

[TheJarulf]

Although, no matter what you're trying to prove, it's still going to be the strange irony that Windows XP IS NOT a hack, and other programs that do THE EXACT SAME THING on other operating systems (thus making it fair) ARE hacks.

That one of the most strange meanings or definition of "hacks" that I have ever seen. Perhaps that firewall software that is not part of XP and that can be used on other OS is also a hack???????

 

[helvete1]

Not sure about the one needing you to connect to Blizzard for it, have never seen such a program although I see it frequently now. It is possible it is done as a more generic way that works for all their games but not sure.

It works for all their games, and all you have to do is get a connection, you do not have to login (as in what it really does is send to someone your account and password...)

I only had that problem once, and that was pretty recently, so I just grabbed the program that was recommended highest.

However, if your installation doesn't work but you still have the MPQ files, you'd have to do it with one of the other programs anyway, as the one I was talking about would not work without monitoring what the game sends to blizz.

 

[Gorny1]

Please be advised that aside from the windows XP method, discussion on any method of having two copies of DII on the same comp are not allowed.