Everyone gets to upgrade to XP SP2 even cracked copies...
Posted by Daniel Fleshbourne on 09 May 2004 - 10:31 · 139 comments & 23056 views
About the Author
Full name: Daniel Fleshbourne
Forum name: Daniel
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Daniel Fleshbourne
Forum name: Daniel
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
#1 Posted by configure on 09 May 2004 - 10:40
QUOTE "It was a tough choice, but we finally decided that even if someone has pirated copy of Windows, it is more important to keep him safe than it is to be concerned about the revenue issue,"
Aww..
Did he conveniently left out the fact that un-protected users could contribute to virus/worm outbreaks, which in the end, contributes to steering customers' trust away from the company?
Edit: He didn't left that out, and I have to learn how to read the entire article
-
#2 Posted by Bazildondude on 09 May 2004 - 10:40
- Odd, but good move really.
XP is probably one of the most pirated pieces of software, imagine the amount of security holes unpatched if they exclude them from the patch.
They'll probably release some other patch after SP2 which will start to kill the invalid keys anyhow.
-
(4 replies)
#3 Posted by leebobs on 09 May 2004 - 10:41
- Added to the Service Pack 2 Thread
Which has also been cleaned up and fully updated
Leebobs -
#3.3 Posted by SecretAgentMan on 09 May 2004 - 13:55
-
#3.4 Posted by BOOGSoftball on 22 May 2004 - 16:42
- We need a thumbs up icon in here...
-
(6 replies)
#4 Posted by Smeg on 09 May 2004 - 10:44
- I said the exact same thing in the forum thread, but I like what I said so I'll repeat it...
I'm against this move, It annoys me that some n00b has got someone to install a Pirated copy of XP for them, and those like myself that actually have a legal copy of XP have shelled out the money for it when we are the ones that actually know what we are doing; and they are the ones that run into problems because they don't how to even look after their systems.
I'm not in the SP2 beta, so anyone who is please pass on this suggestion:
Have SP2, but make it install in two flavours. The installations that have valid keys detected have the full update, but those with illegal keys detected should only get critical security updates (not be able to install Windows Firewall, IE Popup Blocker, DirectX 9, Windows Media Player 9, etc) unless they enter in a valid product key, so they would have to get some of the things like WMP9 & DirectX9 themselves and have to find alternatives to Windows Firewall/IE Popup Blocker too. -
#4.1 Posted by GiB WaKeR on 09 May 2004 - 13:49
- If you have the knowledge to find a pirated copy on the internet, I'd hope that you also know how to 'properly maintain' your computer aswell. Furthermore, if you did pirate XP you probably can handle finding a crack (yes, they would crack it sooner rather than later) for SP2.
Basically, I just don't see the connection between warez monkey and n00b...
-
#4.2 Posted by theyarecomingforyou on 09 May 2004 - 14:12
QUOTE If you have the knowledge to find a pirated copy on the internet, I'd hope that you also know how to 'properly maintain' your computer aswell.
Many people pass copies on to friends that are unenlightened concerning computers, and even people that download it are often told exactly how to by a friend and, accordingly, don't know anything about how it works. Heck, many pirated version just install without needing to apply a crack or even enter in a CD-key so you don't have to be a genius or even average intelligence to use them.
Microsoft's logic seems sound enough - protecting everyone reduces the number of legitimate owners that get hit and reduces bad press that comes with each major virus/worm.-
#4.3 Posted by Manksgloob on 09 May 2004 - 15:50
- If people are using Microsoft's software, chances are they're not using a competitors'.
-
#4.4 Posted by computergod820 on 09 May 2004 - 16:04
QUOTE (#4.0) I'm against this move, It annoys me that some n00b has got someone to install a Pirated copy of XP for them, and those like myself that actually have a legal copy of XP have shelled out the money for it when we are the ones that actually know what we are doing; and they are the ones that run into problems because they don't how to even look after their systems.
love these big time computer guys here, no not fair i dont want the noobs to be able to get the patches it aint right i paid for mine. lol grow up untill 1994 and the internet you were a noob. now if you were like me and started in 1978 then your not a noob otherwise shut your pie hole and deal with it. it's a wonderful move and they did it right for once. I did this twice for all the cty babies say he didnt quote . like my way better but there you are. -
#4.5 Posted by fobban on 09 May 2004 - 19:21
- So jcz you're saying that *nix is stable? Might be if you're only running ONE server or something. I've tried Mandrake, Red Hat and gentoo and all these three flavours have crashed more than Windows XP has done for me. The very few times XP has let me down is due to driver problems, which i shouldn't blame Microsoft for. Tho i must say I really liked gentoo, but it wasn't even close to suite my needs.
Just my 5 cents, have a great day -
#4.6 Posted by windar on 10 May 2004 - 09:19
QUOTE (not be able to install Windows Firewall, IE Popup Blocker, DirectX 9, Windows Media Player 9, etc) unless they enter in a valid product key, so they would have to get some of the things like WMP9 & DirectX9 themselves and have to find alternatives to Windows Firewall/IE Popup Blocker too.
DirectX 9 not a problem : download it from the internet
Windows Media Player 9 (or 10 whatever) : who cares ? it sucks anyway
Windows Firewall not a loss : get any good firewall software
IE popup blocker : what the heck ? just don't use IE and prefer some cool functionnal browser (i.e: firefo
:-)
Last edited by 54972 on 10 May 2004 - 10:44
-
(2 replies)
#5 Posted by Slugsie on 09 May 2004 - 10:45
- Wow. I just got back from the shops, and I could have sworn that I saw Beelzebub buying ice skates.
-
#6 Posted by sunbiz_3000 on 09 May 2004 - 10:46
- This is very unlike Microsoft! Way to go guys. They r really thinking of protecting user PCs now!
-
#7 Posted by DJ Prem on 09 May 2004 - 10:56
- Good decision but if a use has a dodgy copy there must be something else MS is doing that the user will not know off.....
-
(2 replies)
#8 Posted by shimon on 09 May 2004 - 11:08
- they probbly added something which can tell if ur using a prite verson and trys to get ur details and sends it to the FBI and then tell come down and format ur hdd and install linux
-
#8.1 Posted by =Indy-UK= on 09 May 2004 - 13:09
- Nah. they come round and install Lindows!
If that threat don't make ppl buy XP nothing will!
-
(7 replies)
#9 Posted by BananaMan on 09 May 2004 - 11:14
- I have too much spare time..
-
#9.1 Posted by FirstParadigm on 09 May 2004 - 12:58
- LOL!
-
#9.3 Posted by Dark Vageta on 09 May 2004 - 13:54
- ROFLMAO
-
#9.4 Posted by SecretAgentMan on 09 May 2004 - 13:57
- LOL, nice.
-
#9.5 Posted by BananaMan on 09 May 2004 - 14:29
QUOTE (#9.2) what theme is that?
Vector-cell!
-
#10 Posted by Ruciz on 09 May 2004 - 11:17
- hmm.. I like the fact they arn't wasting money to figure out a scheme that won't work like all their other protection schemes, but it seems too unlike MS to allow anyone and everyone to use their code
-
#11 Posted by xntx on 09 May 2004 - 11:25
- looks like microsoft has started to think... why spare time doing anti-piracy protections if there will be a crack for each thing
MS forever!
-
#12 Posted by jh_newroom on 09 May 2004 - 11:51
- Funny how this doesn't tally with the changes in build 2120.... Bit of a u turn...
-
#13 Posted by PukiMan on 09 May 2004 - 12:05
- You can't fight warez, so they just gave up
-
(3 replies)
#14 Posted by ThunderRiver on 09 May 2004 - 13:42
- SP2 may allow all users to install, dosen't necessarily mean it is the same goes to XP SP3.
Remember, Microsoft is touting their SP2 as the most secure service pack 2 ever. Once all the major security is being fixed (or so they think), they might change their mind about future service pack.
-
#14.1 Posted by riahc3 on 09 May 2004 - 14:17
- oh boy SP3 will problably be released 6 months after longhorn at this rate......
-
#14.2 Posted by Andareed on 09 May 2004 - 14:22
- Service packs are cumalitive. So SP2 security updates will still be part of SP3.
-
#14.3 Posted by ThunderRiver on 09 May 2004 - 14:54
- #14.2 It only applies to "patches" itself, not the security policy on who gets to install it.
-
(2 replies)
#15 Posted by ThunderRiver on 09 May 2004 - 13:46
- two flavors? my friend, you appaerntly didn't participate enough in Microsoft Beta program to make such statement. Technically, we already have two flavors. Legal users get to install all the patches in one single service pack. For those illegal copies, at least they can still download patches separately from KnowledgeBase or Microsoft Security website.
It may annoy you about people running pirated copies, but it is their decistions, and if MS doesn't patch their system, they will affect other systems as well.
One bad apple kills all good apples. -
#15.1 Posted by Smeg on 10 May 2004 - 00:12
QUOTE (#1.0) two flavors? my friend, you appaerntly didn't participate enough in Microsoft Beta program to make such statement. Technically, we already have two flavors. Legal users get to install all the patches in one single service pack. For those illegal copies, at least they can still download patches separately from KnowledgeBase or Microsoft Security website.
It may annoy you about people running pirated copies, but it is their decistions, and if MS doesn't patch their system, they will affect other systems as well.
One bad apple kills all good apples.
Well I'm not in a Microsoft Beta program (as already stated) I was thinking more like one SP2 package, but have a checkbox for non-critical updates(new & enhanced feature updates) in the installation that is unavailible for pirated copies, but have the critical updates are still availible for installation
-
#16 Posted by StaticX on 09 May 2004 - 14:12
- lol
-
(1 reply)
#17 Posted by Kusanagi on 09 May 2004 - 14:44
- Interesting... Microsoft came up with this decision a couple of days after people discussed about it on slashdot.
/.'s YRO Article
-
(7 replies)
#18 Posted by Darkness2k on 09 May 2004 - 14:45
- So we won't need to change our keys to ones that provide a valid 640 PID now then?
-
#18.1 Posted by Neobond on 09 May 2004 - 14:54
- How about you take your dumb question to a site that doesn't care about its members being warez monkeys.
-
#18.2 Posted by hotrod on 09 May 2004 - 15:01
- Gotta luv it when Neobond steps up and smacks a n00b around!
-
#18.3 Posted by Kevine on 09 May 2004 - 20:15
- Never say the lords name, Neobond, without the proper formatting!
-
#18.5 Posted by Darkness2k on 10 May 2004 - 11:45
- Warez Monkey? Noob?
I think not.
The businesses that use legitimate VLK's also have PID's that could be greater than 640, I had read somewhere that we would have to change all the systems keys over to another one Microsoft would issue due to them blocking any key that generated a PID that was greater (or I assume, less than) 640. -
#18.6 Posted by Grappa on 10 May 2004 - 19:51
- If you were truly a "legitimate business", you would either already have received information concerning your question directly from Microsoft, or you would have contacted them (on your support contract, doubtless) to make your inquiry there.
-
#18.7 Posted by Darkness2k on 11 May 2004 - 00:26
- Just wondering if anyone would let the uninformed non-business users know is all
-
(3 replies)
#19 Posted by stezo2k on 09 May 2004 - 15:30
- i don't really agree with this, because it seems like ms doesn't mind about people getting windows for free or paying for it
-
#19.1 Posted by mcb on 09 May 2004 - 15:42
- people are going to do it no matter how much or little microsoft cares. theyre saving a lot of money by forgetting about futile piracy protection
they just put 'Do Not Make Illegal Copies of this Disc' on every cd, and thats about it.
they dont even bother with cd protection (which has gotten to the point where its ruining products for legal users anyway)
they're basically data discs with files that can be copied freely off of them, not mattering what source theyre installed from -
#19.2 Posted by Poof on 09 May 2004 - 20:07
- It's however VERY nice that they don't have copyprotection on their disks as as a mobile computer tech I often forget my CDs at the computers site.
>.< Much easier to burn a new one than buy a new one. =/
~ -
#19.3 Posted by cappuchok on 10 May 2004 - 08:36
- Microsoft is doing this primarily to protect their legitimate users. If everyone, despicable "warez d00dz" included, gets the critical patches against security holes, the worms and other Windows-specific self-propagating nasties are less likely to get the momentum needed to, say, perform a DDoS attack or whatever. So protecting ALL users is simply a matter of credibility for Microsoft, showing that they really take security issues seriously.
No doubt, the massive amounts of crud packets emanating from zombies running on Microsoft operating systems and clogging up the Internet is also a reason for MS to patch the holes. I can imagine MS taking quite a verbal beating from many security firms around the world complaning about the data storms caused by Windows vulnerabilities.
Now, on the subject of copy protections, there is technically NO WAY Microsoft could put copy protections on their discs and still have the loyalty of the MCSE/MCP crowd. Reason: SLIPSTREAMING. A feature that is just to useful and appreciated by technicians (such as myself) everywhere. Don't feel like installing SP1 on top of an existing XP? No prob, just slipstream an old disc and there ya go! I'll be slipstreaming SP2 (and 2000 SP5) when it arrives, so I can do clean installs without having to worry about Blaster/Sasser whether or not the computer happens to be outside the firewall. I for one would never give up slipstreaming, and I think MS are smart enough to keep their MCSE:s/MCP:s/MCwhatever:s happy.
-
(2 replies)
#20 Posted by shawnie53 on 09 May 2004 - 15:39
- For all the time MS put into making SP1 not install on hacked systems (eg: FCKGW......) a very easy crack was out within about 3 days, so it pretty much did nothing. I guess they gave in. As well, MS does recognize that there are some pirated copies of XP out there installed on PCs by people who pay computer 'wizards' to fix their computers, not knowing that illegal software is being installed, so I believe that MS is taking those people into account and sympathizing with them... Good move I guess!
-
#20.1 Posted by Poof on 09 May 2004 - 20:08
- FYI- AFAIK the FCKGW key was actually Intel's before it was leaked. >.< (Useless information, I know. =)
~ -
#20.2 Posted by JaggedFlame on 10 May 2004 - 15:25
QUOTE For all the time MS put into making SP1 not install on hacked systems (eg: FCKGW......) a very easy crack was out within about 3 days, so it pretty much did nothing.
How long do you really think it took them to put one CD key check in the installer?
-
(7 replies)
#21 Posted by em_te on 09 May 2004 - 15:43
- I might sound like a dumbass but don't you need to install SP1 before installing SP2?
-
#21.1 Posted by finalcoolman on 09 May 2004 - 18:22
- No. In fact its alot better if you go straight from RTM (which is the original version released back in Oct. 2001) to SP2. It will be alot cleaner. I've got Windows XP SP1a on my system right now and when SP2 comes out I'm reformatting my system and upgrading to SP2. Alot cleaner.
-
#21.3 Posted by todd` on 09 May 2004 - 21:31
- Can you slipstream sp2 onto a cd with sp1a? i threw away my original xp cd once i had one with sp1.
-
#21.4 Posted by DreadMen on 09 May 2004 - 23:31
- Good question.. " Can you slipstream sp2 onto a cd with sp1a? "
Does anyone know? -
#21.5 Posted by scaredmogwai on 09 May 2004 - 23:54
- i wouldn't see why not. with win2k i was able to slipstream from sp2 to sp3 and then to sp4 when that came out.
-
#21.6 Posted by dhitb on 10 May 2004 - 03:32
- Yup, I slipstreamed my copy using the RC1 of SP2 (tech preview) and my XP Pro CD w/SP1 slipstreamed. Works the same with Win2k too, I slipstreamed from SP1, to SP2, to SP3, etc. over the years.
-
#21.7 Posted by maniktushar on 11 Aug 2004 - 15:47
- I have got sp2 rc1 slipstreamed now is there any way to install sp2 without having to reinstall everything hmmmmm...........???????
-
(1 reply)
#22 Posted by nuka_t on 09 May 2004 - 15:58
- does this mean that it will install on the key taht was put on the final xp CD in front of the "25days till xp is released" sign? im not using htat, but i think its pretty funny that it most likely will. stupid n00b warez monekys.
-
#23 Posted by computergod820 on 09 May 2004 - 16:00
- I said the exact same thing in the forum thread, but I like what I said so I'll repeat it...
I'm against this move, It annoys me that some n00b has got someone to install a Pirated copy of XP for them, and those like myself that actually have a legal copy of XP have shelled out the money for it when we are the ones that actually know what we are doing; and they are the ones that run into problems because they don't how to even look after their systems.
I'm not in the SP2 beta, so anyone who is please pass on this suggestion:
Have SP2, but make it install in two flavours. The installations that have valid keys detected have the full update, but those with illegal keys detected should only get critical security updates (not be able to install Windows Firewall, IE Popup Blocker, DirectX 9, Windows Media Player 9, etc) unless they enter in a valid product key, so they would have to get some of the things like WMP9 & DirectX9 themselves and have to find alternatives to Windows Firewall/IE Popup Blocker too.
I love these big time computer guys here, no not fair i dont want the noobs to be able to get the patches it aint right i paid for mine. lol grow up untill 1994 and the internet you were a noob. now if you were like me and started in 1978 then your not a noob otherwise shut your pie hole and deal with it. it's a wonderful move and they did it right for once.
-
#24 Posted by zi0nx5 on 09 May 2004 - 16:02
- I'd seriously take time out to read the EULA if you're using a pirated copy of XP for this one.
-
(2 replies)
#25 Posted by raid517 on 09 May 2004 - 16:19
- Well I have both legitamate and illegitamate copies of Windows. I confess I prefer the corporate version, simply because I build so many systems (I'm a hardware nut and literally change my entire system every couple of months) and the corporate version doesn't require activation. It is just so much less hassle. I know you guys have said in the past that WPA is a breeze, but personally I can't be assed with it. I don't want to be beholding to anyone.
I bought legal copies of XP so that I could at least compensate MS for my usage. So what does that make me? A dirty low down pirate? As far as I can see they have had my money. Now I just want to be left alone to do as I please.
Lol I wonder if this means though, that MS will offer support to all those n00bs who do phone them asking for support with illegal copies?
GJ -
#25.1 Posted by Yvo on 09 May 2004 - 19:41
- No it doesn't actually. It is perfectly legal for you to use any key, as long as it the number of keys in use don't exceed the number of licenses you hold.
For one its somewhere in that EULA.
Not to mention that my HP laptop from HP came with a corporate HP key, which doesn't require activating nor entering during setup but the key according to AIDA32 is completely different than the one attached. -
#25.2 Posted by gawdflesh on 09 May 2004 - 22:49
- You probably don't have a Corp version of XP. My Dell desktop came with a version of XP that had the key pre-loaded into the winnt.sif unattended file, hence it never asks for it during install, and it is locked to the system itself, hence doesn't require activation. The actual computer case, however, has a completely different key that *does* require activation if I make a custom XP install cd without the winnt.sif file.
-
(2 replies)
#26 Posted by Jdawg683 on 09 May 2004 - 16:20
- maybe their allowing it b/c it's secretly going to track the pirated copies like, if you install SP2 on a pirated copy then theres an automatic homing becon that tracks you down!
-
#26.1 Posted by mad_scientist on 09 May 2004 - 16:38
- ok then....
-
(1 reply)
#27 Posted by jcz on 09 May 2004 - 16:26
If ppl who pirate XP would not be able to get the SP2 then many of them would switch to any free alternativ (i.e. a *nix flavour).
Please, don't come saying that it's the "noobs" whom pirate XP and can't get the system updated. You never actually know what happens when you run a windows update, will my computer crash afterwards? Probably.
GO OPENBSD 3.5 and GREAT WORK REDHAT ON FEDORA CORE2 TEST3!
I love yum&apt-get (synaptic is nice but a little "buggy"-
#27.1 Posted by Smeg on 10 May 2004 - 00:17
QUOTE (#1.0) If ppl who pirate XP would not be able to get the SP2 then many of them would switch to any free alternativ (i.e. a *nix flavour).
Please, don't come saying that it's the "noobs" whom pirate XP and can't get the system updated. You never actually know what happens when you run a windows update, will my computer crash afterwards? Probably.
GO OPENBSD 3.5 and GREAT WORK REDHAT ON FEDORA CORE2 TEST3!
I love yum&apt-get (synaptic is nice but a little "buggy"
I was saying not to give them new features in SP2, but still give them SP2 to install critical updates
-
#28 Posted by Ji@nBing on 09 May 2004 - 16:38
- It's not like SP1 even worked at stopping people with pirated copies from installing it anyway. I know this for a fact. My gf lives in China and she got a pirated copy of XP with a keygen there. She can install SP1 and get on WinUpdate with no problems...
-
(1 reply)
#29 Posted by jwjw1 on 09 May 2004 - 17:01
- sure..MS is concerned about Security....so sure...its gonna be free to install...then LOCK OUT the Pirated Copy and User....A Dead Computer OS is not longer a Security Risk of Spreading anything....just a point to Ponder
-
(1 reply)
#30 Posted by Shad0wcat on 09 May 2004 - 17:52
- Hm... this is an excellent PR move by them
-
(7 replies)
#31 Posted by Razor_D on 09 May 2004 - 18:01
- Yeh. right..
I dont see why theyd add protection in a beta build, then say they havent put anything in specifically.
I bet this doesnt apply to VLK or something - but they arent gunna develop code to block these non -640- pids, then just get rid of it. It makes no sense. -
#31.1 Posted by Zatoichi on 09 May 2004 - 18:49
- You can bet the farm that M$ has something special planned for illegal copies of WinXP that are upgraded to SP2...
I think this latest move is response to the new serial numbers that circumvent the SP2 beta protection...lol!
And yes, I have WinXP Pro Corp. (cause I hate the activation crap!), but I also own legit copies of WinXP as well.
All of you guys crying about WinXp Pro Corp. don't know what your missing!
BTW, I've heard SP2 cuts web speed about in half, what are the advantages of SP2 anyway? ROFLMAO
Last edited by 45031 on 09 May 2004 - 19:08 -
#31.2 Posted by weenur on 09 May 2004 - 19:54
- Web speed in half? I don't think so. Everything is full speed here. And yes, I'm in the beta. I have it installed on 5 different machines with no problems. Of course, I can't speak to dial-up, so that may be where the slow down is.
-
#31.3 Posted by Zatoichi on 09 May 2004 - 20:04
- Well, the guys telling me that SP2 had slowed down web-speed (up to half) are VERY capable users and are on cable or ADSL.
So far nothing I've heard about SP2 sounds like I will gain a thing by upgrading to it (except a backdoor for M$, the Feds and later hackers ), so I'll just sit back and let all the Guinea Pigs get the bugs out first! 
Last edited by 45031 on 09 May 2004 - 20:12 -
#31.4 Posted by Poof on 09 May 2004 - 20:12
- Weird. I still get my 450KB/s download and webpages load when I click on them...
Doesn't seem any slower ^_^ -
#31.5 Posted by mikey on 09 May 2004 - 20:37
- well mine got faster while i was using sp2 blueyonder increased my connection from 60k/s to 90k/s
-
#31.6 Posted by XP-RTM on 09 May 2004 - 23:45
- I dont think SP makes the difference while downloading...
it just depends on the servers ... i guess
Both legitimate and unlicensed users of Microsoft's XP operating system software will be able to download the Service Pack 2 security patch for free. Microsoft's increasing concern over information security has translated into its decision to bite the bullet and make its upcoming SP2 (Service Pack 2) security patch available to all users - including those using pirated copies of its Windows XP software.
"We haven't explicitly done anything to SP2 to exclude it from pirated copies," said Microsoft group product manager Barry Goffe. The United States-based executive was interviewed via telephone. This is unlike SP1 (Service Pack 1), which had features to prevent users with pirated copies from downloading it. In SP2's case, the mammoth 80MB to 250MB patch can be downloaded and installed on computers running both legitimate and pirated copies. Users can also request a free CD copy of SP2, although shipping charges could apply, something which the company has yet to finalise, said Mr Goffe.
"It was a tough choice, but we finally decided that even if someone has pirated copy of Windows, it is more important to keep him safe than it is to be concerned about the revenue issue," he added. He admitted, however, that it is more than altruism that helped Microsoft come to this decision.
More reviews:
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer 2.0
Avast! Antivirus Home Edition 4.1
Thermaltake Extreme Volcano 12
LG VX6000
If you would like to submit a member review for consideration please email me voodoo@neowin.net