Hi.
I stumbled upon this article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...International/
Is it true? I haven't really kept up on latest evil things that Mircosoft does.
thanks.
Printable View
Hi.
I stumbled upon this article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...International/
Is it true? I haven't really kept up on latest evil things that Mircosoft does.
thanks.
It is true. Microsoft's Windows Update site will now require validation of your Windows installation, by checking the Product Key against Microsoft's database. If your Product Key cannot be verified (either due to your failure to purchase a Volume License or you've acquired an illegitimate copy of Windows XP), then you cannot manually download any Windows XP updates from Microsoft -- in fact, you can only download security patches from Microsoft, and only through the Automatic Updates feature built into Windows XP (you cannot access the Windows Update site through your Web browser without first getting to the Validation Required screen and going through the validation process).Quote:
Originally Posted by UmneyDurak
Yep, it's truly evil of Microsoft to check whether you are using a pirated version of XP when you try to download updates....
John
I applaud MS for taking a stand against software piracy. If you steal software you are a thief. And thieves cost honest people money. Once again the evil that MS is accused of is nothing more than taking a step to prevent some thieves from stealing software. The people who purchase their software legally will have few complaints, nothing more than a few extra minutes to get updates as the verification tool is installed. But on the other hand, the pirates will have their update requests rejected, and will complain loudly. So I would think that we could extrapolate who the pirates are by see who complains about not getting updates.
To quote Colossus:
Damn, the Police arrested my crack dealer - DAMN THEM!
Anyone complaining about not being able to update their illegal OS is a moron.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCJ
100% right. It stinks that microsoft has to go this route though.
IMO Microsoft is being very generous when they provide free updates and patches.
Many software vendors and OS vendors (HP-UX, MVS, etc.) charge very high prices for software updates.
Those two are a completely different story. They're not aimed at the home user in any way. I don't know a single person that uses anything unix-based other than OSX (and I have problems calling OSX UNIX).Quote:
Originally Posted by ua549
Companies that have licenses to these OSs don't care too much if they have to pay for an update.
Also, HP should just follow IBM and dump their OS.
I know, I can appreciate that MS have to do this but it's becoming irritating the further companies have to go to try and protect against piracy, such as Securerom, Starforce, Steam etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by richardginn
John
As long as you can confirm legality with the same ease as you can do activation, I'm all for it.
I don't want them to install some lame app that resides in memory and prevents me from doing other things, but I don't mind a static check every time I go to Windows Update to find things. After all, I'm going to THEM for updates. They are not being forced upon me.
Historically, I think Windows Update has been one of the concepts that Microsoft has gotten right. It's good for consumers and good for them to allow folks to easily update their system with patches and security updates. It could hardly be much easier in the long-run than they have made it. Plus, they still give you choice as to which updates you want to install, so as long as they do that, I think it will remain a positive option.
I agree completely. It works, it's not bloated, any moron can understand it. It also gives advanced users the choice to do their own things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bearded Kirklander
Windows update is what all update things should be like.
The key for me is that any moron can understand it. :p
Norton Live Update is pretty decent, but it requires a ton of reboots and repeated attempts to get all the downloads. Not a very optimized process, it would seem.
Microsoft also has an Office Update thing that is somewhat similar to Windows Update, though I'm not sure it is as comprehensive. Still, a move in the right direction I would think.
I'm not a massive fan of Windows Update, simply because I've seen it pull down PCs that were working fine when left on full auto, I've had to repair a few PCs because of this. Admittedly more recently, I've not seen any serious problems with it.
John
I have had trouble with full-auto as well. I have much better luck when I do a GHOST image (or others may set a restore point) and then select the items manually.
That way I don't get any new hardware driver updates or SP2 or malicious software apps or other things I do not want. I pick the critical stuff, install and boom, life is good. :)
It's not Norton Live Update that requieres you to restart many times, but the programs that use it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bearded Kirklander
I've used Symantec Corporate since 7.6, Norton Ghost 2003, Norton Utilities 2002. Of all of them, I think only Utilities tells me to reboot, the others don't need to reboot.
Johnmcl7: I'm no sysadmin, but I've never had any problems with Windows Update. Maybe with a particular update, but I can count them with my fingers and I'd still have some fingers left
ADD: what I don't like about Windows Update that it verifies if you have a pirate copy or legal. Is when you reinstall Windows and want to download a patch, you have to enter each time your CDkey. Much easier to login with my passport email that is associated with my CDkey(s). Kinda a pain to flip my laptop every 5 seconds after writting 4 characters until getting to the 25, I have bad memory.