Re: On 'tros vs. pure cracks, my opinion

[Hot Rod <hotrod.apple2@gmail.com>]

Back in the day, things evolved quite a bit in the use of such screens/changes.

The earliest cracks generally had nothing - no indication.  Then a few text screens ("lines" would be more accurate) started to appear sometimes (c1981).  Then things started to shift into the programs themselves (c1982-83).  This is the period where the most damage was done, since for a lot of single load programs space was at a premium, so things like title screens and game intros were stripped off.  And the screens that remained were modified.  Adding insult to injury, the modifications would be over top original text and graphics (or substitute for original text, if found), so things like company names, author names would get lost.  There are, of course, exceptions (the earliest 'standalone' full crack screen I can recall is c1981, but was rare).  Most of the programs (games) during that time period were single load, so it kind of went with the hacking territory - changing the game itself was another way to demonstrate what had/could be done.  [The 'wildcard' cracks are especially annoying, but that's another topic.]

Then in late '83/early '84, programs started to shift to needing the disk.  But not all the disk.  And some of the folks doing cracks had developed more skills beyond cracking.  And tools like Fontrix and Blazing Paddles made graphics easy.  This combo led to creating screens that were independent of the programs themselves (due to available space and the ability to use it). 

Into '84 and '85, a bit of 'ethics' entered the practice, such that it was then considered to be poor form to modify the original program, and a sign of less skill/capability to resort to hacking up the original game's graphics (unless as a last resort). And by then, there was interest in developing more elaborate screens to show off various intro rountines (ahem).  These routines (and screens) were often done in advance of the next 'ware', since they took time to develop too.  So by the time something came around to use them on, there wasn't a need/interest in bothering with the original graphics.

After that period, it was fairly standard to adhere to a boundary in keeping the original game intact and pure, while at the same time still 'tagging' it.  Since most stuff was 'full disk' at that point, it was a simple matter of redirecting boot from track0/sector0 to detour to the crack screen/routine, and then resume the original program untouched from there. Changing the author's info and such was very much frowned upon by that time (still happened, but not without some backlash). If there wasn't room to fit a graphic screen, then text was used instead.

I do think there's need/opportunity to fix up some of the earlier stuff that got hacked.  But I will say that the crack screens do serve one useful purpose, in that they help identify which 'version' of program copy it is.  Not everyone did (or does) things the same way when normalizing to a 16-sector DOS/ProDOS format (or single load), so knowing who's handiwork it is helps.  It's not so much a 'credit' thing as it is a sorting/identifying thing.  If a problem is found later, then which version is it?  That is the crux of placing some form of tag on it.

When I did stuff on my own, for my own archive, I typically never bothered putting anything on them.  So I have several of these 'clean' versions of things, but there's no way to know for sure (other than they came off my floppies).  I've no plans to change them, but if I ever upload them, there'd be no way to tell. As I sort through images, I'm finding that it's helpful to know who 'packaged' it.

]HR