Ghosts?

[Joel]

Not at first, no, but will it surprise anyone when MS silently ignores
a person's update preferences and installs it anyway? They've done it
before, and this is an excellent candidate for them to do it again.

If you mean in a Service Pack, maybe (but even there, intentional
pirates would just get the newer crack, and it would still really be
targeting unknowing victims of counterfeiting). Otherwise, I don't
see why they would even want to.

They may not like piracy of Windows, but they wouldn't like it any
better if people refused to use it at all, or worked harder at
cracking their anti-piracy techniques (as in, making it even harder to
prevent casual copying, counterfeiting, and warez-style piracy - the
current scheme is at least effective at preventing casual copying,
because pirates don't use individual-machine keys).

That's probably the only thing we've agreed on so far.


Demonstrate to who?

Well, they may not keep track of whether I as one user installed the
update, but they would at least know how many people installed it out
of how many were offered it via Windows Update.

I raise the BS flag.

If you want to go around doubting perfectly reasonable comments by
people, feel free. Seems like a waste of mental energy, to me.

<snipped mini-rant about 'warez' and people who supposedly promote it>

You're definitely passionate, I don't think anyone will argue that.

When it comes to treating my property and personal information with
due respect, and encouraging others to do the same, I feel justified
in my passion.

 

[Joel]

True but not as rampant as the software, music and film business would
like you to believe

I really did not mean to insinuate that it's "rampant" (although one
could make the argument that if it's at all common, that's rampant
enough, since it's not worth the risk). I do think it's a lot more
common than people who practice it acknowledge, though, and that
discouraging it altogether is the only responsible action, since I
don't know who might be influenced into naively downloading something,
without understanding how to verify it.

So, now they are calling all of it Warez. It used to be a specific group
of hackers.

I guess it would be hard to get that trademarked.

I haven't been a kid in over 50 years.

I guess I just took you too much at your word about equating Windows
insecurity between legal and pirated forms - I should have realized it
was more of a general troll about Windows. Still, it makes me
wonder, as you would be about twice my age, why you're so aggressively
anti-MS.

I am just stating the facts. I do not support piracy and have never used
pirated software. Being able to know what's happening doesn't mean I am
a part of it. I tell customers that bring us machines with pirated
Windows that with us they have two choices: Linux or buy a copy of Windows.

Thank you for the clarification. In all seriousness, I do recognize
that this is just a newsgroup, and as long as you're doing that in
your real-world business, I support you.

 

[Joel]

I knew you knew, and you still made me go back and get it. *sigh*

I was hoping that you might just acknowledge that my methods can be
equally effective, but it's cool. I do recognize that it's worth
being clear, that my setup is no longer the default for a reason.

 

[Joel]

All I can say is that I've seen machines with pirated Windows that had
no malware or performance problems.

Yes, many of my techie friends, past and present, have found it
amusing that I refuse to pirate software, because they are confident
enough in their abilities to differentiate sources of warez.

Maybe in my case, it really is more on principle - setting a better
example. Then again, I know myself better than that. It is somewhat
out of honesty (since I have the means to pay for software, I should
leave piracy to those who really don't), and somewhat out of being
security-conscious, but more than either of those things, it's out of
laziness - I want to get right down to using my computer and software.
Not having to scan files with multiple anti-malware programs.

In many countries, you have to buy
retail instead of generic OEM. You can only get that if you buy a
complete computer with it.

Well, it's important to note that the $105 Home Premium System Builder
license is *not* as discounted as it is from actual OEMs. Newegg's
price for Home Premium is around what an OEM would pay MS to install
it on a $2000 complete system, which is obviously a lot more than most
people are paying these days.

It seems to be more of a slight discount relative to the upgrade
editions - I certainly was eligible to get the retail upgrade of
7 Pro, but since I wouldn't ever want tech support from MS, the lack
of access to it being the *sole* difference (despite what people
taking the System Builder disclaimer too literally think) from the
retail license, it made no sense to spend any extra money on it,
especially since it's harder to do a clean install with an upgrade
Product Key, now.

If so, you've been lucky what with all the drive by malware out there.

I check for software updates pretty frequently, especially for
vulnerable programs (e.g. browsers/plugins, Adobe Reader).

Once you get everything set up, it doesn't pop up much.

True, but it's still fundamentally unnecessary, if one prevents the
possibility of exploits to begin with. I want to balance security
against the actual risk of a security breach - to maximize both
security *and* usability. Both are equally important, to many people.

I'd run a few anti virus and anti malware programs if I were you.

I would probably switch to Linux if I really believed it were
necessary to use anti-malware software under Windows. Fortunately,
neither are necessary. But in all seriousness, I could never go back
to running anti-malware in the background - massive performance drain.
Manual scanning is a pain in the ass, too.

Its architecture makes it difficult, not its popularity or lack thereof.

I'm not denying that there are *some* inherent advantages to the Unix
design, in terms of security. Then again, they tend to exist in the
lack of Internet Explorer, alone, statistically. Since I use IE only
for very specific, trustworthy sites where it performs better than
Firefox, and am careful in general about how I use all my software, I
can't see how I'd be *substantially* less secure than a Linux box, if
I were to enable UAC and file-system protection (which would also
enable IE's Protected Mode, for that matter).

Gosh, I guess the billions they made pre XP are an illusion and Bill
Gates didn't become the richest man in the world with pre XP and XP
Office sales. It's greed and control, not something warm and fuzzy.

I'm not saying that no one would be honest enough to buy it properly,
but it doesn't take a math genius to realize that a lot more casual
copying and counterfeiting would go on. Also, around the time of XP,
it had become a lot easier to copy CD-ROMs (and now DVD/BD-ROMs, too),
and a lot easier to transfer large programs over the Internet. The
enforcement of Product Keys had become more important (and they had
already used 95/98/Me as test beds of the technology).

There are many. Visit the WGA forums to see what happened with XP and
Vista. Windows 7 is still new and the new and improved WAT isn't out yet.

I am aware that similar software has caused false positives in the
past. If anyone is substantially concerned about that possibility, I
would understand if they choose not to install this update (or for any
other reason - it's optional, and I am glad it is).

 

[Joel]

My first personal computer was the first Mac that came out in 84. It had
a grand total of 128K memory. It was a cute little machine though. I'm
against big business in general and those who try to impose a monopoly
in particular. Some of us hippies are like that ;-)

I've never really bought into Windows itself relating to MS being
monopolistic or anticompetitive. However, it is extremely interesting
to see how they have used their control of Windows to boost MS Office.
Since they're continuing to develop Office for Mac, I don't have a
specific problem with it, and in fact, one could speculate that
dissatisfaction with Office and/or MS as a company helped give rise to
OpenOffice, which is by now a very serious alternative, even while
being free.

But then again, you have to ask, where is even one serious competitor
*other* than OpenOffice? It ain't like Microsoft invented the concept
of a suite of business applications.

Stating the truth about MS and about piracy drives the MS fabois nuts.
It's fun to watch ;-)

Well, Microsoft's stats about infected warez sounded about right, to
me. One has to recognize that just because they sound high *to a
knowledgeable person*, doesn't mean they're incorrect - they would
have included sites/torrents that we (if we actually wanted the crap)
would scroll right past with our sixth sense about sketchiness.

Their stated incidence from Web sources was around 10%, and over 50%
for torrents. That makes a lot of sense - while there are many
non-malicious sources to be found, there are also those who exploit
determined-but-dense people. I'm not suggesting that they are part of
the real warez scene, but they are using warez the way a script kiddie
uses decoy Web pages.