This page is a wiki. Please login or create an account to begin editing.


155 posts / 0 new
Last post

Comments

adespoton's picture
Offline
Joined: 2015 Feb 15

The entire HexRays suite costs around $30k.

You can get other versions of IDAPro for cheaper, and they actually make old versions available for free -- although this may just be the x86/amd-64 decompilers.

The nice thing about IDAPro is that you get one interface you can use to decompile multiple hardware instruction sets -- including PPC and 68K.

For home users, there's also IDA Home: https://www.hex-rays.com/products/idahome/ for $1/day ($365/year).

More details on the different variants at https://www.hex-rays.com/order/

I list all this purely as a satisfied customer.

If you want something similar but free, I recommend https://ghidra-sre.org/

cbone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2011 Sep 17

At those premiums, it may be more feasible to simply locate a customer and ask them to run a few hacks for the easiest and/or most wanted stuff, hopefully they will appreciate assisting in the 'release' of some oldies but goodies! Who knows, the may even be converted into Mac enthusiasts after all is said and done.. that is if they're allowed to do so (I mean, I'm assuming that both the pricetag and type of software are more for enterprise security applications)

powermax's picture
Offline
Joined: 2020 Sep 5

Thank you for pointing out all those options! I stand corrected - Hex-Rays offers meanwhile private licenses. IIRC, that wasn't the case 10 years ago.

According to the linked page, Hex-Rays decompiler doesn't currently support 68K targets - it's limited to x86, ARM, MIPS and PowerPC including both 32 and 64 bit variants.

Yesterday, I contacted a friend of mine that have an access to IDA Pro. I gave him a Interlok protected binary to try out. Judging by the screens he shared with me, IDA Pro v7 cannot reasonable cope with such binaries - the IDA CFM loader could not recognize library imports. Unfortunately, it's not possible to fix it manually.

Admittedly, Interlok belongs to the most challenging protection schemes I saw so far. Anyway, the biggest problem with IDA Pro is that this is a closed source software. If it doesn't work for you out of box there is nothing you can do about it.

I also gave Ghidra a try. It also produces a lot of garbage for the said binary. But Ghidra is an open-source software. That means that someone skilled in the art can step in and make it work without waiting for an engineer.

cbone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2011 Sep 17

Amazing efforts, PowerMax! Laughing out loud

Your findings make me wonder if Hex-Rays might also work on any FAT applications so they may also work for 68k Macs? It appears like you sent him a toughie, too.. but 'why not?' I suppose, lol! Any new avenue is worth exploring.. you never know what you will discover! Wink

Duality's picture
Offline
Joined: 2014 Mar 1

FAT binaries aren't anything special.

If you were curious how some cracks only work for PowerPC but not 68k, or for Intel but not PowerPC, that's because the actual binary segments are essentially just one binary, for a specific architecture, fused together with the other. Whether by lipo (Mac OS X) or by separate resource and data forks (classic Mac OS).

The symbols don't need to match even remotely. Many times, they don't match exactly. Knowledge of how one segment of the binary is laid out doesn't necessarily help you with decoding the other.

All that aside, these modern tools mostly perform the dirty work of matching compiled code to more human readable function signatures and symbols that belong to the OS they originate from. None of this is beyond what Jasik's MacNosy and Debugger already offer.

I'm not really sure that modern decompilers like Ghidra/IDA Pro/Binary Ninja can help you more there, even if they did handle 68k Mac bits well. The best point in their favor is, the modern tools are the standards that reverse engineers are already used to. Like Photoshop with graphic designers.

cbone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2011 Sep 17

Thanks for that thoughtfully-written explanation, Duality! Smile

It gives a clearer picture to the way these things work. I would always shudder when I'd try tinkering with ResEdit to tweak an application or OS code. By carefully applying whatever documented hack it asked for, miracles would occur in front of our eyes.. it's all an amazing art that even with the tad of coding I did in school leapt beyond my grasp. I was happy to end up doing simple front-end coding and design for websites, including wrapping external web databases and venturing into some Wordpress magic, with just a little database design using FMP as part of my toolbox. Thank you for the Photoshop illustration; it was very enlightening!

My biggest regret has been my inability to figure out what so many others have easily done: Classic Mac OS theming through Kaleidoscope or even OS 8.5-9s built-in theming! It pains me to have so many themes and schemes and I can't even make any of my own.. Sad

Duality's picture
Offline
Joined: 2014 Mar 1

No problem.

If it's any help, basalgangster, whom you might know for blogging about building Photoshop 1.0, had some great anecdotes to share about using MacNosy and an earlier debugger that predates Jasik's "The Debugger" called TMON. He even told a few good stories about using TMON to break copy protection.

He's also a fellow that shows up from time to time when you may not expect it.

MadMac's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010 Mar 20

People, it's about time to upload old serial boxes and bsng keys... i got some of this software on my g4, for academic propuoses, of course Wink
If it's not an option, let's clean the dust from resedit, hexedit and resourcerer and put that old adb keyboard to work...

MikeTomTom's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Dec 7

The latter is required.

Remember, this topic is named "Calling all hackers - a list of old software that needs hacking". Wink

The old s-boxes and bsng keys are of no use regarding this list of software that needs hacking - otherwise there would be no point to the list (they would already have cracks/hacks available).

cbone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2011 Sep 17

I think he went beyond the list, Mike Smile and while any and all of the above to make old Mac software work would be appreciated being shared with the Garden, you're right: this list does request the former not the later.

MikeTomTom's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Dec 7

I could swear I had said latter not former Wink

powermax's picture
Offline
Joined: 2020 Sep 5

What's about populating the list with the kind of copy protection is used, be it serial number, key disc or dongle? This is partly there but in the most cases it isn't clear what to do.

Serial numbers are usually very easy to discover because they are statically encoded in the executable.

A more advanced protection is the so-called "activation" - the copy protection generates some code based on the fingerprinting of the user machine; the user sends this code to the software vendor that returns some sort of activation code that authorizes the software to run only on this particular machine. Interlok's challenge-response authorization is one example of this technique.

Key disc based protections are harder to break but they all have one common weakness: once the software has been authorized for a particular machine, no key disc is required. The whole story thus boils down to the question how to make a particular machine to appear "authorized". A lot of protected MacOS software I saw in the past uses hidden files for this purpose. To authorize a machine, it's usually enough to fake an expected hidden file. Interlok's authorizations are hidden too, except they are resided in the reserved space of the partition table so you can format the disc without loosing your authorizations.

The most hardest kind of copy protection is a dongle. Breaking it requires analyzing the whole executable to understand how the dongle works. Dongles' complexity can vary from very simple like performing some basic arithmetic operations like addition, subtraction or multiplication, to very complex like implementing cryptographic algorithms, random number generators and even virtual machines. It would be interesting to estimate the number of software packages that require dongles. My perception is that dongle-based protection is not very widespread although the pro class software of the late 90s uses iLok more often.

cbone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2011 Sep 17

If it weren't for the Nubus hardware requirements, Media 100 would certainly be a stupendous software to break free from its dongle requirement. But if the right hardware would be obtainable, removing its dongle requirement would be phenomenal for those systems! Some in the broadcast industry still remember its influence within their world in the mid-nineties!

Bolkonskij's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Aug 3

Yes, gladly adding more info about the kind of copy protection for each title etc. Just post it here. The list is completely community-based and everyone is chipping in.

Franky233's picture
Offline
Joined: 2019 Apr 6

Could someone just test this PID " UFRMMDc3NzAwMDE1 " founded for iTunes Skin Master as serial? Although it has been cracked, a serial is needed, right? I can't test it myself as I have some troubles with SheepShaver actually...

adespoton's picture
Offline
Joined: 2015 Feb 15

For OS 9 software, it's probably better to test using QEMU-PPC than SheepShaver. For one, there's an integrated debugger; for another, the emulation is significantly more accurate, especially around the edges where copy protection usually lurks.

MikeTomTom's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Dec 7

Hi Franky, I took the program over to my G4 eMac and installed it there.

Unfortunately the serial will be of no use. The activation part requires an online connection to their servers to OK the serial. So, that's not looking promising... But the patched version seems to work fine without it.

Franky233's picture
Offline
Joined: 2019 Apr 6

Hi Mike,

Yep, I know for this patched version, of course. So, as we cannot use a serial, in this case, it's no more requested, I suppose? And their server is down forever I presume? Never mind, thanks for answering. Wink

@adespoton: Thanks. Actually, I need a lot of space on my disk. My save disk is out of order since some months. Perhaps I will try QEMU one day or another, but not for a while...

MikeTomTom's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Dec 7

Hi Franky, yes had I meant the unpatched copy. I see what you mean now, regarding the request on the iTunes SM page. I've updated that page's info to remove the ambiguity. Thanks for pointing it out.

Franky233's picture
Offline
Joined: 2019 Apr 6

YW! You weren't forced to... But well, just perfect from you, as usual... Wink

powermax's picture
Offline
Joined: 2020 Sep 5

Got a working S/N for SoftWindows 1.0.3. Here you go: //macintoshgarden.org/apps/softwindows-10#comment-73922

Enjoy Cool

MikeTomTom's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Dec 7

Got a working S/N for SoftWindows 1.0.3.

Thanks, we might now be halfway there. Wink
There has been a long struggle to find a working serial for the 68k side.

But: Your serial many only work for PPC Macintosh installs. It doesn't work for me on 68k Mac.
We are still hoping for a 68k serial that works for this version of SoftWindows.

[Edit] The PPC side is not working for me either. What type of Mac did you install this to?

Do you own an actual Performa Mac? because the errors I'm getting are it complains that I am not using a Performa Mac (68k & PPC) I've been trying to install this on Basilisk II and SheepShaver and even using Gestalt changers to try and trick the installer into thinking I'm running it on Performa hardware, but so far no go.

powermax's picture
Offline
Joined: 2020 Sep 5

I tried the PPC version of SoftWindows in PowerMac 6100 (my very first PowerMac, it still works) and iMac G3. Both are real machines. I didn't try any emulator. BTW, I assume this software won't work in Basilisk or SheepShaver because they "virtualize" Macintosh HW by replacing built-in drivers instead of emulating it. The only emulator that (partially) mimics PowerMac HW is QEMU.

I'd go ahead and discover the S/N for the 68k side if you like. I assume it's about the executable located in the Stuffit archive Windows App(68K), isn't it?

The PPC side is not working for me either

What's the story? Does it complain about the missing/wrong HW? Does it accept my serial?

Franky233's picture
Offline
Joined: 2019 Apr 6

I suggest that we should examine your "serialized" version. Could you upload it on the SoftWindows page? Then, we could see if another message appears in emulators or if it works. Anyway, it could be very interesting to look inside with ResEdit and compare it with the "unserialized" one... Smile

powermax's picture
Offline
Joined: 2020 Sep 5

For me, the serial also works with the 68k side. Please tell me step by step what errors you see.
I assume emulator-related issues. Can you try it in QEMU?

cbone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2011 Sep 17

What 68k Mac did you use, PowerMax, a Performa by chance? It's exciting to see this SW working on real Macs at least.

Thanks for all your efforts in this crazy journey!! Laughing out loud

cbone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2011 Sep 17

I imagine the "wish I were" system extensions would not fools this installer either.. like you mentioned earlier Frankie, some software surgery would be informational at this stage!

Now if you had a was to image just you system folder w/stock extension set and program (both the PPC and 68k versions, on the same boot volume ideally) I wonder if that would be enough to fool the program since it's already good-to go on your end? This is getting more intriguing as we go!

powermax's picture
Offline
Joined: 2020 Sep 5

Well, like I already said I actually used two real PowerMacs: a 6100 one - that's the very first PowerMac with a 601 CPU and iMac G3 from 1999. The PPC version of SoftWindows 1.0.3 works in both machines out-of-box without any complaint.

It looks like SoftWindows doesn't like Basilisk/Sheepshaver. That doesn't surprise me a bit because those emulators don't really emulate PowerMac HW. They utilize the so-called "virtualization" approach - that means that the Apple drivers will be replaced with specialized drivers that talk directly to the host HW.

We might add a comment like "this software doesn't work with Basilisk/Sheepshaver" to the SoftWindows DL page to keep our users away from frustrating attempts to run it under emulation.

Frankly speaking, you don't really need SoftWindows for Mac to run Windows 3.1 to be able to play Minesweeper. Just install Dosbox or x86 box and you'll get all that vintage M$oft crapware up and running. We got a lot more of unique Mac software with no Windows counterpart so let's concentrate ourselves on getting it working first.

Franky233's picture
Offline
Joined: 2019 Apr 6

When I use this password, I get this message inside Basilisk (with Performa ROM): Thank you for buying SoftWindows for Performa. This Macintosh is not a Performa. To run SoftWindows on this Macintosh immediately, call "not my number obviously, here Tongue " to purchase the appropriate password. To evaluate SoftWindows before you call, click OK and then Demo. Almost same message as here...

So, the serial is working, because the application accept it instead of refusing it. However, it's a no go for the moment... I presume we'll get probably the same message with your version inside emulators. But we must verify it... I suppose that here, the serial is not the real problem, but certainly a part of hardware that could not be really emulated... Sad

powermax's picture
Offline
Joined: 2020 Sep 5

I bet the issue is related to HW drivers. I remember SoftWindows looks for specific drivers like ".Sony" that is the floppy disk driver. If it isn't there your particular Mac is considered to be a wrong machine. Period. Changing Gestalt values will be of no avail.
I'll try to verify it tomorrow if you like.

MikeTomTom's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Dec 7

I bet the issue is related to HW drivers. I remember SoftWindows looks for specific drivers like ".Sony"

That's it! I saw ".Sony" come up in an error message when I was trying to crash the installer for some feedback.

Incidentally, version 1.0.2 has no problem installing onto Basilisk II because it doesn't included specific HW checks. But v1.0.3 does...

I do have an '040 Mac, I'll try installing to that and see how it goes. But it's not looking promising for B2/Sheep

cbone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2011 Sep 17

If the install fails to run due to a driver check, could the code that makes the check be bypassed, or substituted with the code from the previous version 1.0.2 as a way to circumvent this hardware check?

Of course I'm not a Mac-coding aficionado so I have no way of knowing if such a feat is feasible with by copying-and-pasting some code and a few mouse clicks or if it's a nightmare to decipher!

I'd imagine that Insignia hard-coded that hardware check in such a way to make it hard to go around it Sad

MikeTomTom's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Dec 7

That's it! I saw ".Sony" come up in an error message

I need to retract that, as it fails on my C660av as well - Which does have a Sony floppy drive Sad

I get the same errors that I get with Basilisk II and SheepShaver - and same as Franky, above. Unlike Franky though, I don't believe the password is accepted. Because once the "This is not a Performa" dialog is dismissed you are placed back in the serial entry dialog where the serial field is now blank and you are given the opportunity to either enter a fresh serial or click the "Demo" button and run SoftWindows in demo mode.

This is not a PerformaClick to expand view:

MikeTomTom's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Dec 7

Unlike Franky though, I don't believe the password is accepted.

With apologies to Franky; I retract that statement, too. It does accept the password but it refuses to allow it because of the hardware that it thinks it's being installed onto.

And suffice to say; I now have it running on Basilisk II and my C660av Smile

It required using a gestalt changer; "Wish I were..." gave me the best results. I also needed to install a Performa specific Control Panel named "Performa", go figure, and the "System Enabler 364", with "Wish I were..." set to Performa 575".

Franky233's picture
Offline
Joined: 2019 Apr 6

Thanks for your apologies, Mike. Smile Yesterday, I was about to write a post here for answering, but, finally, not. I would suggest that you should test a serialized copy... But, finally, you've found a better way... That's excellent, well done. Wink

MikeTomTom's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Dec 7

Yes it's working well now, on 68k Mac's including Basilisk II JIT and build 142

m68k, if he's still interested, may be able to install and run this version after all Wink

I can't say the same for SheepShaver tho' as yet I'm not able to trick v1.0.3 into thinking that it's running on a Performa Mac - I've tried both OLD & New World ROMs, gestalt changers, and System Enablers - all to no avail.

It's a curious one, because like powermax with his easy installation to PPC hardware, I was able to install this error free onto my G4 eMac and it doesn't protest about this G4 for not being a Performa.

Also, I did try a serialized copy as well, but it still throws up the "this is not a Performa" error despite being registered previously on a working system.

[Edit] Maybe not for m68k Sad

My fix ends at 7.6.1 - in Mac OS 8.1 on Basilisk II it fails, Seems to work OK for Systems 7.1 to 7.6.1

Franky233's picture
Offline
Joined: 2019 Apr 6

It's a curious one? I would say rather a rebel one (to be kind... Angry ) I hope that m68k would try it even with a System 7.x at least. But, if his problem concerns only systems 8, yes, another fix should be requested. Sad

cbone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2011 Sep 17

Well whatcha know! You did it, Mike Laughing out loud fwiw, I knew you could do it Wink

It took a few old Mac tricks to trick the software, but at least it didn't involve any crazy app Res-editing, thank goodness!

Now our coolest Mac madman can continue on his quest to conquer the world with his Mac-tablet! I've been just a little worried, but whenever he goes into hiding from time-to-time, I do expect him to pop outta the ground in a few and celebrate your latest exploit for his benefit, lol.

I admit, I do get a kick seeing some of the cool and crazy things he's managed to pull off, and a few of those also benefit those who enjoy running Basilisk II on Android like myself.. thankfully, this one will benefit anyone who'd like to follow that magical Basilisk II manual you mentioned and that m68k had looked at as well!

By the way Mike, could the Performa CDEV and Enabler that you used be uploaded as a small, separate install helper kit? For the truly lazy, I suppose adding these w/a small how-to to the SW 1.0.3 archive would be phenomenal, but where's the fun in making the whole pie if it's all ready-to-go and in the pizza box? I couldn't resist throwing a small C660AV-joke in there, lol!

MikeTomTom's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Dec 7

Maybe not as promising for m68k as it first seemed. At least for Mac OS 8.1 on B2 where it no longer works (and is m68k's preferred OS on B2).
My fix ends at 7.6.1 - Seems to work OK for Systems 7.1 to 7.6.1, only. Sad to say.

If I knew a ResEdit hack for this I would use it in a heartbeat.

I am getting an installer kit ready tho', for those earlier systems and will add it to the SoftWindows 1x page shortly.

cbone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2011 Sep 17

System 7.6.1 is a noteworthy OS version; I only chose 8.1 because it's slightly newer (things like HFS+, etc.) and it has some cool Finder GUI tricks up its sleeve over 7.6 that I do enjoy that the OS kept until OS 9.

I only wish a lite version of A-Dock would have been made for 68k Macs, some more OS X-ish than the other tile launchers.

You know, I wonder if changing the version number in OS 8.1 would allow the install to finish? Although I'd imagine that it goes a little further than just doing a OS version number check on the part of the SW installer.

MikeTomTom's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Dec 7

It installs it just doesn't work on that OS version (doesn't think its running on a Performa Mac) Wink

cbone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2011 Sep 17

Genius deduction, PowerMax! Laughing out loud

Wait Mike.. so if v1.0.2 doesn't do the check and v1.0.3 does, that would explain one of the ever-so-slight differences between both versions, possibly along with some stability-bug fixes and maybe even some speed tweaks if we're lucky.

PowerMax, m68k was interested in this version because apparently it fixes some stability issues that present themselves in v1.0.2 and I believe he looked up that v1.0.3 is a stability-bug fix update. What he wanted to run it for does beat me atm, lol.

He's a crazy Mac tinkerer (aren't we all, lol) that pushes the envelope with his little emulated Mac. He's using his virtualized Mac for book writing and pretty much as his day-to-day Mac for non Internet-related things. He's done some real impressive stuff on his little old 68k already, but left to me, I'd drop the desire to run real old Windows emulation within his 68k Mac emu.

Here's where he hints toward his quest for this specific version of SoftWindows, besides his personal needs/wants for it within his Mac, he found an archived blog that shows SoftWindows 1.0.3 running within Basilisk II successfully.

My question pertaining to the blog that m68k found is this: was the version of Basilisk II used on that blog post the same as his own, or a different version like Mike's older preferred version?

MikeTomTom's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Dec 7

Not a blog, a manual. This became clarified down here (same topic) and yes, it was about "build 142" not the common garden variety JIT build. Only, m68k didn't realize this at the time...

I also don't think there is any difference between v1.0.2 and 1.0.3 apart from the nobbling Performa clauses in v1.0.3

You can quite happily take the Win 3.1 drive file that gets installed by v1.0.3 and use the v1.0.2 SoftWindows program to load it up and run DOS/Windows 3.1 in that. It works perfectly.

powermax's picture
Offline
Joined: 2020 Sep 5

I've generated a couple of SoftWindows 1.0.3 passwords for you to try:

#2: 2310-0100-5421-1266
#3: 2320-0200-4505-4812
#4: 2340-0201-5604-1852
#5: 2350-0100-2267-0007

The first three digits are related to program version. v1.0.3 accepts the following values: 230, 231, 232, 234, 235. I don't know what's the difference between them so please go ahead and try out.

Let me know how it goes...

P.S.: don't forget to remove all your hacks like "Wish I were" before you proceed.

MikeTomTom's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Dec 7

@powermax: You are a genius !!!

The first 4 (including your first one on the SW 1x page) all work, but claim that the Mac is not a Performa and ask for another serial to activate SoftWindows on that particular Mac (Basilisk II and SheepShaver and my C660av).

However, your #5 serial above works on any Mac including Basilisk II running Mac OS 8.1 and earlier and also on SheepShaver too. It completely bypasses the Performa checks that SW v1.0.3 throws up on the other codes.

#5: 2350-0100-2267-0007 <-- works on Mac OS 8.1 Basilisk II !!!!!! Gold !!!! Laughing out loud

m68k can now rest easy on this one, cbone Wink

@Bolkonskij: You can add SoftWindows v1.0.3 and credit powermax, in your list of Success stories!

I can remove the now unnecessary "Wish I were" files from the SW 1x page and update the description.

powermax; What's next on your list of seemingly unsolvable puzzles? Wink
I personally would like to see the time-bomb removed from the OS X version of SoundJam MP, if you're interested enough to take a look. It died on us recently with an expiry notice after working fine since the early 2k's. View some of the posts on that page down to galgot's first post. Looking at the lengths he is going to, to try and keep using this, I think he would be a very happy person if it was possible to neutralize the time-bomb code in it.

powermax's picture
Offline
Joined: 2020 Sep 5

@MikeTomTom Thank you for testing the passwords! I'm glad to hear that the 5th one finally solved the issue Smile

While my personal to-do list isn't directly related to older copy protection I'll see if I can find a solution for that SoundJam time bomb puzzle.
Is there a known way to trigger it? Like playing with the time settings?

MikeTomTom's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Dec 7

@powermax: Awesome. Triggering it is simple, just launch the app with today's date and time unchanged.

If you look at galgot's posts you can see that in order to use this player now, he sets the time of his Mac back to some time in 2017 and then the player works for him. But I think this is just messy. It would be a whole heap better if it could be patched to just work without any time checks, if possible.

Galgot's post from July 2020 was when he first experienced this time-bomb. I get the impression that he likes to use this particular SoundJam a lot so I assume that it began somewhere around then.

[Edit] Oh and if you don't have a copy of SoundJam MP for OS X already installed it won't install fully at today's date. I needed to set the clock back (I was looking at galgot's script, so I set it back to 2017 as re: his script) I was then able to personalize it OK and use the player. Resetting back to the current date, and relaunching the player triggers the same expired notice. - Most annoying.

Bolkonskij's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Aug 3

Honor to those whom deserve honor - just added powermax's hack to the success stories. Very cool, powermax! Smile

cbone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2011 Sep 17

Wow: those are scary-amazing hacking skills, PowerMax! Laughing out loud you have cracked one of our most sought-after Mac serial cases we've had in some time, seemingly without breaking a sweat, lol!

But in all earnest, thank you for pitching in for this; we'll definitely put this little baby to good use for sure, fingers crossed for m68k Wink

powermax's picture
Offline
Joined: 2020 Sep 5

Wow: those are scary-amazing hacking skills, PowerMax!

Thanks a lot! I feel honored. I'm glad I could help Smile

seemingly without breaking a sweat

It turned out to be pretty easy in fact. Moreover, the password anatomy seems to be the same for all SoftWindows versions. If you need more serials you know whom to ask Wink

Now we can play Win-Solitaire under PowerMac emulation. I recommend everyone to give it a try. It feels like using a weird time machine Cool