Talk:Daemon Tools

Expansion

I don't know personally, but wouldn't this be a good place to put reasons why Daemon Tools are useful? Aside from its actual function, what would it actually be used to do? Are there legitimate uses for it, aside from bypassing copyright protection? Thray 14:27, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, this article's bit about copyright infringment REALLY makes it seem like this program (and all others hy people use this program would be similiar to other disk image emulation programs) and give a quick summary.

I really hope this software is released under a open source license (like the GNU GPL), too many good closed sourced programs like this, and DVD Shrink / DVD Decryptor are being threatened out of existance because of the copyright war. --ShaunMacPherson 19:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

There are indeed legitimates reasons to use this. People who have a lot of games or other software which require the CD to be in to use find it very irritating to constantly have to change the CD in the drive. Also, copying a CD to an image on the hard disk is a valid way to prevent scratching of an expensive original disk. And also, some people don't waste money on CD-ROM drives on all their machines, preferring to have just one machine with a CD drive and use that machine to make images which are moved over a LAN to the machine that uses the software. Ben Morris 18:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I use it to test DVDs before I burn them to disk. The DVD authoring software produces a .iso file and I can mount it with Daemon Tools as though it was a real DVD... if my DVD player software plays it correctly, then I can burn disks knowing that they'll work. Mark Grant 15:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyright infringement illegal?

The article says that "copyright infingement is illegal in most countries". It was my understanding that copyright infringement is always illegal, and in places where it is not, this is because it is not considered copyright infringement. That is to say, in countries that have copyright laws, infringing those will always be illegal, it is just that different things count as infringement in different countries. Also, copying of closed source copyrighted material is not necessarily copyright infringement, as most countries have fair use provisions (e.g. there is often an archival and/or personal use provision). --Superiority 00:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

It's infrigement from developers point of view. :) Rikis 08:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You may have a point. However: If US - which has laws - stuff is copied in Uganda - which might have no such thing - it might still be called infringement by the US party, or am I seeing things too relatively? Zanaq 19:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Depends on the status of their treaties regarding intellectual property rights.

2CENTS: I think it has a strong 'anti-piracy' bias. There are many legitimate uses for the program and they should be addressed.

Copyright infringement could be a civil matter rather than a legal matter. Ie: If you violate copyright, you could face a lawsuit but no jail time. In that case, could it still be said to be illegal? - 71.197.117.166 21:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Spyware

I am changing "adware" to "spyware" in the Daemon Tools description because WhenU SaveNow is known to do affiliate cookie hijacking. Dajhorn 06:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Adware/Spyware? Where?

I'm using daemon tools for a long time and i sever saw any spyware on it. If you mean optional trash you can toggle on install... then i may have disabled it every time. But i can't remember. And i definitely don't have spyware on my computer. I use many tools and check very often. And this is a pretty well-known spyware you're talking about. So: Where is it? You must add external references to this thesis, or else i'll remove the parts about the ad/spyware. (See "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.") (I got captcha-enabled scripts to ensure this.) Because to me this looks like slander from alcohol soft. Please explain & verify! Thank you!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.100.57.59 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC).

It is indeed "optional trash you can toggle on install". Try installing it with every checkbox on to verify for yourself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thomas Castiglione (talk • contribs) 11:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC).

I just installed it straight off their web site. I think the "however the installation is optional and can be deselected during the install process" is disingenuous because it doesn't label it as spyware; it says "Daemon Tools Search Bar - sponsor displays contextual links and offers (Internet connection required)". I presume this is the spyware, but it's masquerading behind technogibberish. It doesn't flag it as spyware/adware or optional. If you didn't know any better (and if you weren't looking for it) it would be easy to miss. As for the "easily uninstalled", well, you have to know it's there. This is spyware by stealth. Because the existing text makes it out to be flagged out and easily deselected, well, that just isn't true. I'm changing the page on this basis. And to Daemon if you are listening, I think this really stinks. I will however keep my edits clear and unemotional. I also checked the WhenU web site which says it is "The SearchBar interface and new user enhancements, designed to maximize your online and desktop experiences." This doesn't make clear it's spyware/adware nature. Under the circumstances, I think it's fair to call this what it is. Shame on you, daemon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.213.7.133 (talk) 12:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This article seems to contradict the wikipedia entry on spyware. Specifically "Spyware is computer software that collects personal information about users without their informed consent. " Daemon tools insures you know whats you're installing, from beginning to end, and it can even be unistalled without any hassle at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.168.26.244 (talk) 10:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I changed it back to adware. Although it may be misleading, I would not consider its means of installation as deceitful. Any other changes should probably be fully thrashed out on this page before addition. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 19:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the adware section should be moved to the end of the article, or atleast after uses.

Call it whatever you want, but daemon definitely knows the nature of this software. I haven't used daemon since the beginning, before it had this spyware/malware. So I just installed it thinking I could trust the source. I have had to uninstall about 3 applications that embedded themselves in my system. Two of them managed to install themselves into Firefox add-ons and tool bars. The first time I used a web browser I was redirected to a page that contained just a single image, and then my Firefox window was resized (I believe in IE this would have made it look like a system message, since the image had xp theme borders and title bar, but in Firefox it just looked silly). The image was a link to obvious malware "errcheck". Again, call it whatever, but if you saw this software on your system you would tread softly for the next few days, and feel violated in the process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.41.77 (talk) 08:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Windows 98 support?

When did they stop supporting Windows 98? I want to download the last version for windows 98 for my old laptop

v3.47, see this thread --Voidvector (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Supported File Types

DAEMON Tools supports the following image files:

   * cue/bin
   * iso
   * ccd (CloneCD)
   * bwt (Blindwrite)
   * mds (Media Descriptor File)
   * cdi (Discjuggler)
   * nrg (Nero)
   * pdi (Instant CD/DVD)
   * b5t (BlindWrite 5)
   * isz (Compressed ISO images)

This is taken from the website itself. - Thero

Games Refusing To Run If Daemon Installed

I vaguely remember that The Sims 2 refused to run on my system while I had Daemon installed, it would always say 'please insert the correct disc' or whatever. I would think this would be one of the more well-known examples of such, though unfortunately I can't find any information on it right now. PolarisSLBM 13:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Copy protection systems have looked for disc emulation for a few years now. It's not specific to DAEMON Tools. Chris Cunningham 16:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually the article mentions that some programs look specifically for the drivers associated with DAEMON Tools, and refuse to run if it's installed.Balderdash707 (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Naming

If the product is "styled DAEMON Tools by its creators," why shouldn't the article refer to it thus, and be thus named? 71.243.129.191 17:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the article should be renamed to "DAEMON Tools" obviously. --85.210.2.164 (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#All caps and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). - Cyrus XIII (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Version history

Can someone describe the feature difference between pre-adware (v3) vs post-adware (v4)? Is the newer version able to handle more protection types, etc.? Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2007

Cleanup

I've cleaned up the article a bit. I've listed the editions and their differences. I also removed the uses section, as it just mimics the list found in optical disc authoring software. Andareed (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Security Concerns

I understand why Andareed reverted my changes on the daemon tools page so I've condensed it and moved it into security concerns section. Please see WhenU, Gatory, page on why such separate section are neccessary to advise users of the potential problems with installing adware supported software. Such information must not be misplaced inside other sections since it cloaks it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.166.188 (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Both Kazaa and Messenger Plus! Live have longer sections devoted to its included adware, so an adware section for Daemon Tools seems reasonable to me, as long as it stays NPOV, which was my original concern. I've renamed the section to "Adware". Andareed (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The Bundled 'Sponsor' Adware / Spyware

Yes, DT Basic includes it, and yes the noted citation [2] shows that you have to install the sponsor, but this is not true. I have been using DT for a number of years now, and when they went public with their commercial product I was on of the loudest outspoken critics on their forums, saying they needed to keep it free. Basically, you can install DT Basic for free, without installing the sponsor at all and after that the program runs fine regardless of whether you installed the sponsor or not.

The citation, as I stated, is correctly linked, but it is *that* page that is cited that needs to be changed - the sponsor is not *mandatory* it is optional.

I'll try to bring this up on the DT forums to see if they will make an amendment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnlgalt (talk • contribs) 10:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I made a change trying to clarify as best as I can. I've used D-Tools forever but I always just pulled the version out of my download directory. Well, I went to grab it today and saw all this LITE stuff so I checked here to see what the deal was. When I saw this mandatory adware I was concerned. I looked around and confirmed that it is just like it has always been with version 4.x. It tells you on install that there is an option for it and you can say no. Then you go on your merry way. So yes, maybe the FAQ needs to be fixed but the information on the page is just outright wrong. You don't have to. I don't have time to read and memorize the wiki editing rules so maybe y'all will slap me down and call me Ginger but something just seems really wrong about having wrong information and not fixing it because it comes from a FAQ. 68.102.180.134 (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is this represents original research. I don't doubt what you added is correct, but we need a reputable source to say this. Andareed (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Lite GUI

Can someone explain/confirm why the comparison chart says that the Lite edition does not have a graphical interface? This seems kind of silly. Ham Pastrami (talk) 06:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Lite only includes a tray-icon; I've updated the table to reflect this. Andareed (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The data in the table is not clear and implies that Lite has a GUI. A tray icon is not a GUI. According to the DT website, Lite does not have a GUI. The table should also be updated to reflect that the Pro Basic has been discontinued, and that some of the features have changed for the other versions. 71.200.140.35 (talk) 15:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

filesystem editors

be an ip and don't want to register so if someone create the link . think it could be usefull to update the article with a table like audio video software that list import export and compatible with HFS . for example ultraiso support iso but magic iso support HFS filesystem of hybrid CD ( iso +hfs) . the nero tool support iso+hfs so size of ultraiso + magic iso = size of nrg create using nero . So import export table could be usefull with mount option .. many sofwtare exist like winimage ultraiso neroburning magic disc magic iso ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.58.147.81 (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

4 Editions?

As I'm writing this, the Editions part of the article reads:

"Since version 4.00, four editions of the product exist: Lite [Commercial], Pro Standard and Pro Advanced."

But I only see the name of three editions not four: (1) Lite [Commercial], (2) Pro Standard and (3) Pro Advanced! I have also visited Product Comparison page on Daemon tools web site and see no more than three. Is there another fourth edition written in invisible ink or is it really a counting error?

You know, there are three types of people: Those who can count and those who cannot! ;) Fleet Command (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Some suggestions...

I think a link to the Daemon Tools homepage would be a good idea. That's why I'm here. I took the first link Google offered and was surprised to find that the site had some words that were not English. This was unexpected, and my first thought was that the "daemon tools" text had been hijacked by someone that is NOT the author, and the searches were being re-directed AWAY from the legtimate Daemon Tools site.

Some explanation as to the nationality, etc... of the authors, some indication that non-English words on the home page would be a good thing.

Also, it would not hurt to directly solicit the software's authors and have them take some responsiblity for this article. It would only help them, as well as other people.

In terms of "nuts & bolts", WHY the software is useful (instead of being greyware used to circumvent copyright protection schemes) is that it allows a legal owner of software to create an image file of their software and emulate the physical disk's existance on their computer when using the software (such as playing a game). This prevents the physical disk from being subject to scratches and other damage (including loss). You can image the CD, and then store it safely while using the image file to emulate the CD being in the optical drive. BIG (and completely legitimate) use for Daemon Tools.

Another thing worth mentioning is that the sptd.sys driver is different than the standard MS drivers etc... and doesn't behave the same. I've just run a Repair Install (aka "upgrade") of WinXP and have just discovered I'm going to have to reinstall Daemon Tools because (unlike all my other software) something has happened to the way in which WinXP handles the Daemon Tools software. Meaning, everything else works just fine, but Daemon Tools needs to be reinstalled. Not exactly sure why this is, but I'm sure it's normal, and worth mentioning in the wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonny Quick (talk • contribs) 03:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Version Listing

Currently the version listed is 4.35.5.0068 which applies to the daemon tools lite version. A few days ago it listed the current daemon tools pro/pro advanced version (v4.35.0306). I'm wondering whether the version listed on the article's page should list the DTLite or the DTPro version since they seem to differ. 65.10.2.172 (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Present adware content is not explicitly clear from the description

The way the description of the program is worded does not make it explicitly clear for the reader that the program's Lite version indeed contains adware, be it optional or mandatory. It does implicitly hint at it ("Versions prior to v4.00 had only one edition. That edition was freeware, had no adware, and was solely an imaging disc-emulation software (no image conversion, creation, burning, and so forth). Version 3.47 is the last such version."), but *does not make it explicit*. I do believe that this is indeed a serious concern, especially in case of a piece of software which relies on using a *rootkit*, even out of unavoidable necessity, for it to successfully emulate copyright protection. Apart from my personal views that it is extremely bad politics for a software company to put off potential (more experienced) buyers of even Pro (non-free) versions of the software by anyhow getting related to the adware/spyware terms, I do believe that readers of the Wikipedia article are not mislead only if the wording of this is modified to make it perfectly clear that the program is indeed bundled with additional software. (Especially since with certain versions even users who chose not to install the toolbar and other 3rd party programs, got stuck with these programs installed anyway, see the relevant Deamon tools forums, and other related tech forums and talks.)

I advise therefore that the (original) editor(s) modify the description to make it more explicit, like "Lite version since v4.00 contain bundled (optional) adware." This is still all very fair to the writers/owners of the software, and does not even tackle the adware/spyware differentiation, and raises no concern of the dangers what a rootkit-based program with bundled adware might be capable of even without the average user's consent.

94.248.149.113 (talk) 13:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Balazs

Blacklisting circular reference

The first paragraph immediatley following the Blacklisting heading cites http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=187641 as the source, however this site contains the same paragraph word for word and cites this article as the reference. This means this article is citing itself. I have searched online for any other reference or examples of software that, when installed, will uninstall Daemon Tools if it is present on the system as claimed in this paragraph, however I could find no such reference. I have removed this section from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.217.86 (talk) 05:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Uh, has the software been bought out?

The previous versions seemed to have version histories written by fairly literate Eastern European types. Has the program since been bought out by someone for whom english is their fourth or fifth language? Nevard (talk) 04:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Notability guideline

Taken aback by this - Daemon Tools is by far most popular disk image emulator for Windows OS. Because of the "grey area" nature of this kind of software it doesn't get much "official" publicity, but simply checking Google Trends shows that it's way ahead of all competition. 62.152.141.163 (talk) 18:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Rootkits

Why is in category Category:Rootkits ? --212.183.198.9 (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Probably beacuse the software indeed contains a rootkit - a fact that is now altogether missing from its description on the main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.21.115.88 (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

DAEMON or Daemon

So I made this edit a moment ago, making the article more consistent in its use of "Daemon" over "DAEMON" is prose text ("Daemon" already being used in the article title [UDPATE: not any more!]). This was reverted by FleetCommand (as is his/her prerogative under WP:BRD) with the edit summary "Product name is a copyrighted property of the author and not yours to play with." This I disagree with on a number of levels:

• Firstly, copyright does not apply to two words (I can cite caselaw if required for this, which I see from the warning on my talk page I may have to *sigh*). Even if it did, it doesn't (by definition) affecting changing things when you copy them, only whether or not you can actually copy them in the first place. On both counts, I suspect FC has in fact got trademark (rather than copyright) law in mind. Which bring me on to:
• Secondly, trademark law protects trademarks against certain kinds of loss-creating use (basically concerning misrepresentation), not against changing capitalisation
• Thirdly, the Manual of Style is unequivocal that names in all-caps should be changed to title case to make them easier to read (first section, third bullet point).

I therefore recommend that my edit be reinstated. Thanks, - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 11:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi.

1. First, copyright applies to the software product as a whole. When something is protected by copyright, no single part of it can be violated; it does not matter if that part is by itself not copyright-eligible.
2. Second, you seem to mistake trademark laws for copyright laws. Trademark laws are not our concern here. If I studied them and decided that they'll apply, I'll call you.
3. Third, WP:CAPSACRS supports DAEMON Tools because acronyms and initialisms in Wikipedia may be written in capital letters. I also read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks but it seemed to me that it was talking about all caps not part caps.

Fleet Command (talk) 12:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: WP:CAPSACRS is part of WP:MOS-CL. Smurf! I need a lightening fast Internet connection to catch up with you. Fleet Command (talk) 12:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, missed your reply earlier.

1. Your conception of copyright here is very different from the law's. I can assure you that there is no copyright problem here.
2. I only mention trademark law to support you, because I couldn't believe that you were trying to make a copyright point.
3. I agree partly here, and it's definitely your strongest point. Yes, Daemon is an initialism. I would argue, however (i) it's already being referred to in third party sources in lowercase (and thus is well on its way to being the next "scuba" or "laser") (ii) it's forced, and hence few people are even aware it is an acronym at all (iii) it looks uncomfortable in prose. Consequently, while I agree there is room for divergent opinion, it would surely be better to ignore the fact that it's an acronym, follow MOS:TM and render it in title case.

Thanks, - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 16:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay! So, let it be "Daemon". I do not agree with you but I think I do not have to; all discussions must eventually end with a result. We can agree to disagree. Regards, Fleet Command (talk) 12:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: The above applies equally to (reversing) the page move. Thanks, - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 11:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad! I was moving the article as well when you made the change and was in the middle of it. Unfortunately, the talk page moved but not the article itself. And I can't revert it. Please wait while I call an admin for help, so that the talk page retain its original name while we are talking. I'll be back in a sec. Fleet Command (talk) 12:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've moved it back. Incidentally, this showed up the fact that the article was originally at DAEMON and moved under a join WP:MOS-TM and WP:MOS-CL, both of which are relevant to the discussion above. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 12:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I have to remove my admin help request. Fleet Command (talk) 12:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Deleted shortcut

There's no reference for the alleged abbreviation of the 'DAEMON' part in 'DAEMON Tools'. The name has no special meaning. SwENSkE (talk) 09:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Daemon Tools. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111113165232/http://daemon-help.com:80/en/windows_integration_lite/file_associations_lite.html to http://www.daemon-help.com/en/windows_integration_lite/file_associations_lite.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708220310/http://daemonpro-help.com/en/glossary.html to http://daemonpro-help.com/en/glossary.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402203945/http://www.pcworld.com:80/downloads/file/fid,73988-order,4/description.html to http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/file/fid,73988-order,4/description.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)