Using a bootlegged copy of XP??

pgp_protector · Jul 14, 2004

XP has a site licensing, and the good thing about it is , is that there is no activation with site licensing, but If that key gets out, they know who to come after.

Kokopelli · Jul 14, 2004

The site licensing is very handy indeed. Makes me wonder if the "releases" available for download use a form of site license key or if the kernel itself was modified. That however, is beyond my realm of knowledge.

pgp_protector · Jul 14, 2004

Wouldnt trust them "releases", yea, it may run, but what sorta back doors have been coded into the system ?

Kokopelli · Jul 14, 2004

All the more reason not to use it. Not to mention, that the releaser could have maliciously added something to the kernel to wreck some havoc to your system.

cabbitgrrrl · Jul 14, 2004

pgp_protector said:
Wouldnt trust them "releases", yea, it may run, but what sorta back doors have been coded into the system ?

the ones microsoft coded in there? lol

cabbitgrrrl · Jul 14, 2004

forgivensinner001 said:
What does this mean for users who run XP on 1000s of machines such as a school district and do yearly reinstalls? Is there some kind of site license coverage? I know if each machine had to have a different key used for the install, that would turn a routine site reinstall into a huge n i g h t m a r e.

that is of no concern to microsoft, the only thing they are concerned about is filling their pockets with your cash

Kokopelli · Jul 14, 2004

cabbitgrrrl said:
the ones microsoft coded in there? lol

Athanasian Creed · Jul 15, 2004

pgp_protector said:
XP has a site licensing, and the good thing about it is , is that there is no activation with site licensing, but If that key gets out, they know who to come after.

Yup, hence all the copies of XP Pro Corporate out there that got leaked years ago

Ray

seebs · Jul 15, 2004

Just a side note: I would never trust a statistic produced by the BSA. They, and the SPA, are both, so far as I can tell, totally fraudulent.

Dracil · Jul 15, 2004

pgp_protector said:
Wouldnt trust them "releases", yea, it may run, but what sorta back doors have been coded into the system ?

Except that for most well-known groups, it would ruin the group's reputation and people won't bother with their releases anymore. Now if you use an unknown group's releases, that's your problem. For the most part, scare stories have been drummed up without real basis.

CaptainMatt · Jul 15, 2004

Microsoft released a Beta version of SP2 and hackers have already gotten on the bandwagon, I've been reading that SP2 is already cracked. When is microsoft going to understand that you can't stop pirates. If someone wants something bad enough they can easily get around some silly attempt to stop pirating. My only worry is that the people that don't try and steal stuff, they will have more problems from all this copy protection stuff microsoft is putting on their software. Copy Protection only hurts the common user, it doesn't phase or deter hackers.

Cozmo · Jul 16, 2004

I've been running SP2 beta for a while now. I totally agree with Athanasian Creed in which it sped up my system, is more responsive and is quicker on startup. While their firewall is an improvement to the old one, I still don't use it. Likewise with their pop up blocker. Not saying that they don't work, they actually do, but I like my router and I like my Google toolbar. Not everything has to be from Microsoft. I still wish they'd give us a tool to edit the QoS Packet Scheduler to a persons needs / wants, but there are other ways around that.

Talie · Jul 18, 2004

i HATE SP2 have had it installed for months now and if there was an easy way to remove it I would have ages ago.

I use already have a firewall and so i turn the windows one off, but it manages to turn itself on again on a regular basis - very annoying.

The thing that annoys me most though, is that I HATE the fact that it constantly blocks innocent code. Seems Microsoft have decided that ANY kind of interactive content needs to be blocked. Any of your typical flash stuff, any of your simple mouse over menus - all get blocked - and sure, you can turn it off, but you have to do so for every single webpage! and lets face it, how many pages DON"T have some kind of interactive content these days?

As a web designer, i'm constantly testing pages via temp files on my computer, every time i view one of the pages I'm testing, I have to unblock the content - EVERY SINGLE TIME - and testing pages in a brower window is something I do constantly while i'm working - it drives me insane.

And what happens to those computer users who don't know very much? They're going to get these security warnings and blocked content for pages that a totally innocent - how are they to know the difference between something like a mouse over menu that's been blocked and something that acutally MAY be harmful to their computer? They simply won't, so they'll take the safe way out and just allow everything on every page they visit to be blocked - taking away the whole interactive aspect of the internet

It's stupid

SirKenin · Jul 18, 2004

I have this SP.. SP2 RC2.. It does have enhanced firewall and popup blocker features. It also has some other neat features such as DirectX 9.0 c. I really like it actually and am very happy with it's performance. The internet security is tight and quite advanced, but it's easy to allow content to be displayed by clicking on the bar at the top of the window. It keeps all the malicious junk out of the computer. For those using aftermarket firewalls, this SP will eliminate the need to do so.

And yes, it's true.. If you don't have a valid CD key, you cannot apply it. A friend of mine is in just such a dilemna, not that I feel sorry for him or anything.

Athanasian Creed · Jul 19, 2004

drfeelgood said:
{snip} It keeps all the malicious junk out of the computer. For those using aftermarket firewalls, this SP will eliminate the need to do so. {snip}

(emphasis mine)

I strongly encourage everyone to use a 3rd party firewall - DO NOT trust MS native firewall. It only blocks incoming traffic NOT outgoing. Third party firewalls are more thorough and robust.

Same sort of problem with anyone depending on System Restore once their system goes belly up. SR at best is hit and miss and there are MUCH better programs that are a 1000% improvement on SR (such as GoBack from Symantec) Just another "word to the wise."

Ray

Kokopelli · Jul 19, 2004

Athanasian Creed said:
(emphasis mine)

I strongly encourage everyone to use a 3rd party firewall - DO NOT trust MS native firewall. It only blocks incoming traffic NOT outgoing. Third party firewalls are more thorough and robust.

I thought the general rule of thumb was not to trust any part of MSoft products...

SirKenin · Jul 19, 2004

Athanasian Creed said:
(emphasis mine)

I strongly encourage everyone to use a 3rd party firewall - DO NOT trust MS native firewall. It only blocks incoming traffic NOT outgoing. Third party firewalls are more thorough and robust.

This is not accurate. It blocks both incoming and outgoing.. It will ask you if you want to allow a program to connect to the internet. Yahoo, Q3A and Joint Ops are just three examples I can think of off the top of my head.

Athanasian Creed · Jul 19, 2004

Unless MS changed the firewall within SP-2, the native firewall in XP has only monitored incoming traffic.

Ray

SirKenin · Jul 19, 2004

It has been changed. The one in native XP only monitored incoming, 'tis true.

Using a bootlegged copy of XP??

Noted strange person

Stoic seeker of the truth

Noted strange person

Stoic seeker of the truth

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Stoic seeker of the truth

Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Solus Christus !!!

God Made Me A Skeptic

Well-Known Member

In the Clouds

Actively seek a living relationship with Him

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Solus Christus !!!

Stoic seeker of the truth

Contributor

Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Solus Christus !!!

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency