Do not validate your software

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

Do not validate your software. If a lot of people validate
their software. Microsoft will be inclined to keep using that
program. Activation is enough to deal with. I seen so many
activation problems in a lot of groups. I would not be surprised to
see validation problems as well for legally bought computers or
software..

http://www.microsoft.com/genuine/default.mspx

http://www.microsoft.com/genuine/downloads/FAQ.aspx



Reason
1. It is inconvenient

2. It another step the consumer has to do. Just to prove his copy is
legal. Activation is supposed to do that.

3. Other sites couldn’t directly link to a download-like download.com

4. It will not stop piracy. It will actual increase piracy

5 People won’t be inclined to update. Including me

6. It will possible increase compromised systems.

7. It could cause small business some money that just use one or two
computers.



Updates like msn messenger, DirectX, Windows Media play are supposed
to be freeware. I would not call those freeware if Microsoft decides
to enforce the validation program. I would call it validation ware

Don’t get me wrong. I am against piracy. I also against
inconveniencing the consumer.



Greg R
P.S. Microsoft said they wanted feedback of this. Here it is.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

Greg R wrote:

> Do not validate your software. If a lot of people validate
> their software. Microsoft will be inclined to keep using that
> program. Activation is enough to deal with. I seen so many
> activation problems in a lot of groups. I would not be surprised to
> see validation problems as well for legally bought computers or
> software..
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/genuine/default.mspx
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/genuine/downloads/FAQ.aspx
>
>
>
> Reason
> 1. It is inconvenient
>
> 2. It another step the consumer has to do. Just to prove his copy is
> legal. Activation is supposed to do that.
>
> 3. Other sites couldn't directly link to a download-like download.com
>
> 4. It will not stop piracy. It will actual increase piracy
>
> 5 People won't be inclined to update. Including me
>
> 6. It will possible increase compromised systems.
>
> 7. It could cause small business some money that just use one or two
> computers.
>
>
>
> Updates like msn messenger, DirectX, Windows Media play are supposed
> to be freeware. I would not call those freeware if Microsoft decides
> to enforce the validation program. I would call it validation ware
>
> Don't get me wrong. I am against piracy. I also against
> inconveniencing the consumer.
>
>
>
> Greg R
> P.S. Microsoft said they wanted feedback of this. Here it is.

Just another reason to stick with Windows 2000, with an eventual move to
Linux. Thanks to the Nazis at MS!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

do you have a drivers licence or were you not willing to
give your fingerprint???
>-----Original Message-----
>Greg R wrote:
>
>> Do not validate your software. If a lot of people
validate
>> their software. Microsoft will be inclined to keep
using that
>> program. Activation is enough to deal with. I seen
so many
>> activation problems in a lot of groups. I would not
be surprised to
>> see validation problems as well for legally bought
computers or
>> software..
>>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/genuine/default.mspx
>>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/genuine/downloads/FAQ.aspx
>>
>>
>>
>> Reason
>> 1. It is inconvenient
>>
>> 2. It another step the consumer has to do. Just to
prove his copy is
>> legal. Activation is supposed to do that.
>>
>> 3. Other sites couldn't directly link to a download-
like download.com
>>
>> 4. It will not stop piracy. It will actual increase
piracy
>>
>> 5 People won't be inclined to update. Including me
>>
>> 6. It will possible increase compromised systems.
>>
>> 7. It could cause small business some money that just
use one or two
>> computers.
>>
>>
>>
>> Updates like msn messenger, DirectX, Windows Media
play are supposed
>> to be freeware. I would not call those freeware if
Microsoft decides
>> to enforce the validation program. I would call it
validation ware
>>
>> Don't get me wrong. I am against piracy. I also
against
>> inconveniencing the consumer.
>>
>>
>>
>> Greg R
>> P.S. Microsoft said they wanted feedback of this.
Here it is.
>
>Just another reason to stick with Windows 2000, with an
eventual move to
>Linux. Thanks to the Nazis at MS!
>
>--
>Peace!
>Kurt
>Self-anointed Moderator
>microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
>http://microscum.com
>"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an
Oxymoron!
>"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
>
>
>.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

Greg R wrote:

Nothing worth reading

Take this off-topic drek to the political, religious, or advocacy
groups, where it _might_ be appropriate.

Spam report id 1243406701 sent to: admin@famvid.com
/dev/null'ing report for postmaster#famvid.com@devnull.spamcop.net

Spam report id 1243406705 sent to: spamcop@imaphost.com

--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having
both at once. - RAH

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

..
Why is Windows so expensive?



A.
Microsoft does everything it can to offer the best possible value for
customers' software investments. We believe that the product's features and
functionality, along with continuous improvements, are more than enough to
justify its price.


"Features" will built-in holes to fix seems more accurate. Built-in job
security is more like it.
"Greg R" <webworm12@yes.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ifjtk0tr8srpqdagmside2l9saej959191@4ax.com...
> Do not validate your software. If a lot of people validate
> their software. Microsoft will be inclined to keep using that
> program. Activation is enough to deal with. I seen so many
> activation problems in a lot of groups. I would not be surprised to
> see validation problems as well for legally bought computers or
> software..
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/genuine/default.mspx
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/genuine/downloads/FAQ.aspx
>
>
>
> Reason
> 1. It is inconvenient
>
> 2. It another step the consumer has to do. Just to prove his copy is
> legal. Activation is supposed to do that.
>
> 3. Other sites couldn't directly link to a download-like download.com
>
> 4. It will not stop piracy. It will actual increase piracy
>
> 5 People won't be inclined to update. Including me
>
> 6. It will possible increase compromised systems.
>
> 7. It could cause small business some money that just use one or two
> computers.
>
>
>
> Updates like msn messenger, DirectX, Windows Media play are supposed
> to be freeware. I would not call those freeware if Microsoft decides
> to enforce the validation program. I would call it validation ware
>
> Don't get me wrong. I am against piracy. I also against
> inconveniencing the consumer.
>
>
>
> Greg R
> P.S. Microsoft said they wanted feedback of this. Here it is.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

Bruce how is this off topic? How is this spam?

You can just put me on your kill filter if you don't want to read my
post.

I resent you for reporting me to my isp. By the way. They don't have
newsgroups. What give you the right to report this as spam?

Now I got to explain to my isp, that I got a disability and don’t have
very good grammar.

I am not spamming. Microsoft said they wanted feedback. They didn’t
say how. My isp don’t have news servers. I am not spamming is
advertisement. I not advertising a product for sell. I expressing
my views on this subject. Now, I going to have to call & write the
isp and explaining. I not spamming.


Greg R



>On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 19:14:02 -0600, "Bruce Chambers" <bruce_a_chambers@h0tmail.com> wrote:

>
>Greg R wrote:
>
>Nothing worth reading
>
> Take this off-topic drek to the political, religious, or advocacy
>groups, where it _might_ be appropriate.
>
>Spam report id 1243406701 sent to: admin@famvid.com
>/dev/null'ing report for postmaster#famvid.com@devnull.spamcop.net
>
>Spam report id 1243406705 sent to: spamcop@imaphost.com

 

[Cs]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 21:29:27 -0500, Greg R <webworm12@yes.hotmail.com>
wrote:

Ignore Chambers. Anything he says is worthless anyway and don't worry
about his SPAM reports. Just place him in your kill filter and press
on.

>Bruce how is this off topic? How is this spam?
>
>You can just put me on your kill filter if you don't want to read my
>post.
>
>I resent you for reporting me to my isp. By the way. They don't have
>newsgroups. What give you the right to report this as spam?
>
>Now I got to explain to my isp, that I got a disability and don't have
>very good grammar.
>
>I am not spamming. Microsoft said they wanted feedback. They didn't
>say how. My isp don't have news servers. I am not spamming is
>advertisement. I not advertising a product for sell. I expressing
>my views on this subject. Now, I going to have to call & write the
>isp and explaining. I not spamming.
>
>
>Greg R
>
>
>
>>On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 19:14:02 -0600, "Bruce Chambers" <bruce_a_chambers@h0tmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Greg R wrote:
>>
>>Nothing worth reading
>>
>> Take this off-topic drek to the political, religious, or advocacy
>>groups, where it _might_ be appropriate.
>>
>>Spam report id 1243406701 sent to: admin@famvid.com
>>/dev/null'ing report for postmaster#famvid.com@devnull.spamcop.net
>>
>>Spam report id 1243406705 sent to: spamcop@imaphost.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

Greg;
"Microsoft said they wanted feedback of this. Here it is."
Actually, No.
Since these peer to peer newsgroups are not officially monitored,
Microsoft may never see your comments.
If you want Microsoft to see it, you should post to a location
Microsoft will see:
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=114491
http://register.microsoft.com/mswish/suggestion.asp?from=cu&fu=%2Fisapi%2Fgomscom%2Easp%3Ftarget%3D%2Fmswish%2Fthanks%2Ehtm

Some of your points have some validity but your #5 is silly.
While it may cause some to not update, you make it seem like you are
punishing Microsoft by not updating and keeping your computer secure.
Guess who loses most if your computer is insecure and all your data is
lost or compromised?

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/


"Greg R" <webworm12@yes.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ifjtk0tr8srpqdagmside2l9saej959191@4ax.com...
> Do not validate your software. If a lot of people validate
> their software. Microsoft will be inclined to keep using that
> program. Activation is enough to deal with. I seen so many
> activation problems in a lot of groups. I would not be surprised
> to
> see validation problems as well for legally bought computers or
> software..
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/genuine/default.mspx
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/genuine/downloads/FAQ.aspx
>
>
>
> Reason
> 1. It is inconvenient
>
> 2. It another step the consumer has to do. Just to prove his copy
> is
> legal. Activation is supposed to do that.
>
> 3. Other sites couldn't directly link to a download-like
> download.com
>
> 4. It will not stop piracy. It will actual increase piracy
>
> 5 People won't be inclined to update. Including me
>
> 6. It will possible increase compromised systems.
>
> 7. It could cause small business some money that just use one or
> two
> computers.
>
>
>
> Updates like msn messenger, DirectX, Windows Media play are
> supposed
> to be freeware. I would not call those freeware if Microsoft
> decides
> to enforce the validation program. I would call it validation ware
>
> Don't get me wrong. I am against piracy. I also against
> inconveniencing the consumer.
>
>
>
> Greg R
> P.S. Microsoft said they wanted feedback of this. Here it is.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

Greg R wrote:
> Do not validate your software. If a lot of people validate
> their software. Microsoft will be inclined to keep using that
> program. Activation is enough to deal with. I seen so many
> activation problems in a lot of groups. I would not be surprised to
> see validation problems as well for legally bought computers or
> software..
[snip]

> 4. It will not stop piracy. It will actual increase piracy
>
> 5 People won't be inclined to update. Including me
>
> 6. It will possible increase compromised systems.

I'm personally not very impressed with validation at all, and I agree with
the reasons that i've snipped from your post for the sake of brevity.

I'd be interested in why you feel it will increase piracy and cause an
increase in compromised systems - I can think of one or two arguements in
those directions myself but they seem fairly weak to me.

Do you think people will be less inclined to update because you think that
they will be annoyed at the extra hassle, or do you think there is a problem
with the process here (I'm talking an actual problem with the process, not
how the process annoys you)?


--
--
Rob Moir, Microsoft MVP for servers & security
Website - http://www.robertmoir.co.uk
Virtual PC 2004 FAQ - http://www.robertmoir.co.uk/win/VirtualPC2004FAQ.html

Kazaa - Software update services for your Viruses and Spyware.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

See Bruce a mvp partially agrees with me : )
Bruce my isp told me not to worry.


Robert see inline.

>On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 19:19:29 +0100, "Robert Moir" <bofh@mvps.org> wrote:

>Greg R wrote:
>> Do not validate your software. If a lot of people validate
>> their software. Microsoft will be inclined to keep using that
>> program. Activation is enough to deal with. I seen so many
>> activation problems in a lot of groups. I would not be surprised to
>> see validation problems as well for legally bought computers or
>> software..
>[snip]
>
>> 4. It will not stop piracy. It will actual increase piracy
>>
>> 5 People won't be inclined to update. Including me
>>
>> 6. It will possible increase compromised systems.
>
>I'm personally not very impressed with validation at all, and I agree with
>the reasons that i've snipped from your post for the sake of brevity.
>
>I'd be interested in why you feel it will increase piracy and cause an
>increase in compromised systems - I can think of one or two arguements in
>those directions myself but they seem fairly weak to me.

People could be inclined to use other methods. People who don’t
update may get compromised system. The blaster virus for an example.


>Do you think people will be less inclined to update because you think that
>they will be annoyed at the extra hassle

I really cant answer that question. It really depends on the person.

>do you think there is a problem with the process here
> (I'm talking an actual problem with the process, not
>how the process annoys you)?

I may have not understood your correctly. No problem with the
process. I think it would be even worse if it was done silently,
however that is just my personal opinion


Greg R

Disclaimer
My grammar is bad and I don’t mean to appear rude
This is not spam These are my personal opinions.
Any advice given is as-is. My opinions or Suggestions do not
necessarily reflect the view of Microsoft or my isp

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

> Greg;
> "Microsoft said they wanted feedback of this. Here it is."
> Actually, No.
> Since these peer to peer newsgroups are not officially monitored,
> Microsoft may never see your comments.
> If you want Microsoft to see it, you should post to a location
> Microsoft will see:
> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=114491
>
http://register.microsoft.com/mswish/suggestion.asp?from=cu&fu=%2Fisapi%2Fgomscom%2Easp%3Ftarget%3D%2Fmswish%2Fthanks%2Ehtm
>
> Some of your points have some validity but your #5 is silly.
> While it may cause some to not update, you make it seem like you are
> punishing Microsoft by not updating and keeping your computer secure.
> Guess who loses most if your computer is insecure and all your data is
> lost or compromised?

FUD! A totally unpatch MS OS can be run with absolutely no chance of
unauthorized intrusions.

With a good firewall, up-to-date AV, accessing the net with a non MS browser
and email client, and a little common sense, one doesn't need to rely on
MS's patchwork quilt of security updates.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

Greg R wrote:

>
> People could be inclined to use other methods. People who don't
> update may get compromised system. The blaster virus for an example.

Perhaps. Of course there are many ways to mitigate against things like
blaster. Anything that makes it harder to apply patches is a bad thing of
course. I personally think this is the single over-riding issue; If a
machine is ever connected to the Internet then any modern virus or worm that
gets onto it is a problem for many more people than just the infected
computer's owner.

>> Do you think people will be less inclined to update because you
>> think that they will be annoyed at the extra hassle
>
> I really cant answer that question. It really depends on the person.
>
>> do you think there is a problem with the process here
>> (I'm talking an actual problem with the process, not
>> how the process annoys you)?
>
> I may have not understood your correctly. No problem with the
> process. I think it would be even worse if it was done silently,
> however that is just my personal opinion

Fair enough. I was wondering if you had identified a possible problem with
the process or whether you felt that so many people would be annoyed with it
that it would prove unworkable.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

>
>Fair enough. I was wondering if you had identified a possible problem with
>the process or whether you felt that so many people would be annoyed with it
>that it would prove unworkable.
>
I guess I need to word my subject better. When I am against
something.

The Following statement is a little of topic. This should answer your
question and the reason I do these types of post.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I am against piracy. However. I always
have and will continue to believe the following.

I am against activation. I against validation because of
inconvenience.

Also I against validation because of this.

Let say another (Heaven Forbid) blaster virus hit xp. Causes people
loss of internet connection. So there friend has a Linux System.
The can’t download the patch because it require validation.

However, I will have to give some credit to Microsoft. They allowed
the blaster patch to be put on other sites and allowed people to share
it. Even through some people will disagree with this statement.

I have some ideas how to stop piracy. Real easy. Hire someone to go
after all those sites the sell oem copies illegally. I would be
willing to do this for $10.50 an hour.


If I could afford it I would join the Aclu and state clu



Greg R
Disclaimer
My grammar is bad and I don’t mean to appear rude
This is not spam These are my personal opinions.
Any advice given is as-is. My opinions or Suggestions do not
necessarily reflect the views of Microsoft or my isp

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

"They allowed the blaster patch to be put on other sites"
Are you sure?
Microsoft is the only legitimate source for Microsoft patches.

Some sites may have appeared to distribute Microsoft patches but
usually a closer look actually shows a redirect to Microsoft.

If any site other than Microsoft is actually distributing Microsoft
patches, they are doing it against Microsoft.
They are also potentially creating a security problem.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/


"Greg R" <webworm12@yes.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8j31l0t853eb8f0u6pa9tfjmig42eco9p3@4ax.com...
> >
>>Fair enough. I was wondering if you had identified a possible
>>problem with
>>the process or whether you felt that so many people would be annoyed
>>with it
>>that it would prove unworkable.
>>
> I guess I need to word my subject better. When I am against
> something.
>
> The Following statement is a little of topic. This should answer
> your
> question and the reason I do these types of post.
>
> Now, don't get me wrong. I am against piracy. However. I always
> have and will continue to believe the following.
>
> I am against activation. I against validation because of
> inconvenience.
>
> Also I against validation because of this.
>
> Let say another (Heaven Forbid) blaster virus hit xp. Causes people
> loss of internet connection. So there friend has a Linux System.
> The can't download the patch because it require validation.
>
> However, I will have to give some credit to Microsoft. They
> allowed
> the blaster patch to be put on other sites and allowed people to
> share
> it. Even through some people will disagree with this statement.
>
> I have some ideas how to stop piracy. Real easy. Hire someone to
> go
> after all those sites the sell oem copies illegally. I would be
> willing to do this for $10.50 an hour.
>
>
> If I could afford it I would join the Aclu and state clu
>
>
>
> Greg R
> Disclaimer
> My grammar is bad and I don't mean to appear rude
> This is not spam These are my personal opinions.
> Any advice given is as-is. My opinions or Suggestions do not
> necessarily reflect the views of Microsoft or my isp
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 15:44:20 -0600, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"
<jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote:

>"They allowed the blaster patch to be put on other sites"
>Are you sure?
>Microsoft is the only legitimate source for Microsoft patches.
>
>Some sites may have appeared to distribute Microsoft patches but
>usually a closer look actually shows a redirect to Microsoft.
>
>If any site other than Microsoft is actually distributing Microsoft
>patches, they are doing it against Microsoft.
>They are also potentially creating a security problem.

Yes, at first the blaster patch was only either on the windows update
site or another location at Microsoft. Since, the virus blocked access
to the Microsoft website. Microsoft was forced to allow this patch
to be redistributed. So other website were allowed to put it on
their servers. Otherwise, No one would have been able to get the
patch. One site was download.com

Greg R

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

No, Microsoft does not allow others to redistribute their patches for
security reasons.
Download.com is redirecting as they have with other Microsoft patches.
Go to download.com now and try it with the blaster patch.
Look closely at the grey box, it is a redirect to Microsoft.

There were others that distributed the patch illegally.
Just because they were distributing it does not mean it is right.

Getting a patch from an unauthorized is a potential disaster for your
computer.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/


"Greg R" <webworm12@yes.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> Yes, at first the blaster patch was only either on the windows
> update
> site or another location at Microsoft. Since, the virus blocked
> access
> to the Microsoft website. Microsoft was forced to allow this
> patch
> to be redistributed. So other website were allowed to put it on
> their servers. Otherwise, No one would have been able to get the
> patch. One site was download.com
>
> Greg R