Should this page remain?
It was recreated after Marcan deleted it. I contacted him and he said we should wait until Comex chooses to post it on the wiki. If this page isnt supposed to be here, dont blame me, I just updated it :P Beegee7730 10:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- I talked to comex and he doesn't mind, he just cant be assed to learn wiki markup to do it himself. what he does mind is idiots using this in conjunction with notdvdx to brick themselves (like trying to downgrade a LU64 wii, these have new hardware that wont work with old IOSs or so I'm told) Yossi 10:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Shouldnt this be added to the news then? Beegee7730 10:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
this is so easy to use! 3.1e + 1F --Wilsoff 21:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Why do i want to shout OWNED and point at nintendo firmware makers? :) Anyway,how stable it is?Is it more dangerous than the Twilight Hack?Thank you. LuciusMare 09:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
My guess is that bannerbomb is much more stable than the TP Hack because i used it and it worked like a charm. (i used TP Hack on 3.4 and was a pain to get working) --Flyguy 23:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Lesser used Bannerbomb files
Add info about brick possibility...
For some reason, everyone thinks that bannerbomb can brick your wii just by running it. It doesnt change the NAND whatsoever. So i was thinking someone might want to mention this on the page maybe?--ChuckBartowski 23:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Big bold waring ON TOP OF THE PAGE
My Wii got bricked, and I had no idea that it would brick it! Why was there no warnig, and futhermore WHY THE HELL DO PEOPLE RELEASE POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS SOFTWARE WITHOUT THROUGH TESTING? Mattwo 06:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)