Microsoft: Legit Windows or no updates

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Matt, Jan 26, 2005.

  1. Matt

    Matt Guest

    Was reading this earlier, might be of interest (dont think its been posted)

    " Aiming to crack down on counterfeit software, Microsoft plans later this
    year to require customers to verify that their copy of Windows is genuine
    before downloading security patches and other add-ons to the operating
    system. "

    Full Story:
    http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5550205.html?tag=nl.e589

    Matt
     
    Matt, Jan 26, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Matt

    froggy Guest

    On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 20:38:07 +0000, Matthew Poole wrote:

    > In article <41f7ed93$>, "Matt" <> wrote:
    >>Was reading this earlier, might be of interest (dont think its been posted)
    >>
    >>" Aiming to crack down on counterfeit software, Microsoft plans later this
    >>year to require customers to verify that their copy of Windows is genuine
    >>before downloading security patches and other add-ons to the operating
    >>system. "
    >>

    > *SNIP*
    >
    > Last time this was suggested, the security community howled in outrage.
    > Many of the copies of Windows that're online aren't legal, and refusing
    > them security updates is a sure way to ensure plenty of vulnerable
    > machines.
    > It's likely to backfire on MS, in any case. Faced with an order from
    > their ISP to patch up or **** off, at least some customers will change
    > OS. Particularly if it means they save themselves the several hundred
    > dollars it costs for a legit copy of Windows.


    It's an interesting situation though... a company (Microsoft) forced to
    service (what amounts to ) stolen products
    The costs in bandwidth and lost sales wouldnt be easy to bear if it was
    any other company
    As has been noted by a number of people.. Microsoft today resembles IBM of
    old more and more and we all know what happened then
     
    froggy, Jan 26, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Matthew Poole wrote:
    > Last time this was suggested, the security community howled in outrage.
    > Many of the copies of Windows that're online aren't legal, and refusing
    > them security updates is a sure way to ensure plenty of vulnerable
    > machines.


    The other way to ensure vunerable machines is making home users in
    charge of patching... most(90%+) of the PCs that I deal with in the home
    environment were unpatched until I visited.

    > It's likely to backfire on MS, in any case. Faced with an order from
    > their ISP to patch up or **** off, at least some customers will change
    > OS.


    Do any ISPs actually do this?
    Surely Xtra would lose a lot of business if they kicked off all the spam
    zombie machines... not to mention how much less data they could charge
    for on the owned Jetstream machines.

    Incidentally I complained about a few Xtra machines on jetstart(found by
    rDNS) that were pumping out viruii by the bucket full... since a week of
    complaining about a month ago it seems to have stopped.

    In the emails I was clear about what I was complaining about and cited
    the particular Terms and Conditions that they were violating... the "no
    server" clause, where clearly they were running an SMTP server :)

    I felt like a bit of an arse originally, but I feel that I've done some
    good for the general net.
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Jan 26, 2005
    #3
  4. Matt

    axel Guest

    Matt wrote:

    > Was reading this earlier, might be of interest (dont think its been
    > posted)
    >
    > " Aiming to crack down on counterfeit software, Microsoft plans later this
    > year to require customers to verify that their copy of Windows is genuine
    > before downloading security patches and other add-ons to the operating
    > system. "
    >
    > Full Story:
    > http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5550205.html?tag=nl.e589
    >
    > Matt


    Can anybody remember what "later this year" means in Microsoft speak ?
     
    axel, Jan 26, 2005
    #4
  5. axel wrote:
    > Can anybody remember what "later this year" means in Microsoft speak ?


    could mean either tomorrow, or in a few years.
    :)
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Jan 26, 2005
    #5
  6. In article <41f7ed93$>, "Matt" <> wrote:
    >Was reading this earlier, might be of interest (dont think its been posted)
    >
    >" Aiming to crack down on counterfeit software, Microsoft plans later this
    >year to require customers to verify that their copy of Windows is genuine
    >before downloading security patches and other add-ons to the operating
    >system. "
    >

    *SNIP*

    Last time this was suggested, the security community howled in outrage.
    Many of the copies of Windows that're online aren't legal, and refusing
    them security updates is a sure way to ensure plenty of vulnerable
    machines.
    It's likely to backfire on MS, in any case. Faced with an order from
    their ISP to patch up or **** off, at least some customers will change
    OS. Particularly if it means they save themselves the several hundred
    dollars it costs for a legit copy of Windows.

    --
    Matthew Poole Auckland, New Zealand
    "Veni, vidi, velcro...
    I came, I saw, I stuck around"

    My real e-mail is mattATp00leDOTnet
     
    Matthew Poole, Jan 26, 2005
    #6
  7. Matt

    Adder Guest

    In article <ct8rj0$opt$> in nz.comp on Wed, 26 Jan 2005
    20:38:07 GMT, Matthew Poole <> says...
    > In article <41f7ed93$>, "Matt" <> wrote:
    > >Was reading this earlier, might be of interest (dont think its been posted)
    > >
    > >" Aiming to crack down on counterfeit software, Microsoft plans later this
    > >year to require customers to verify that their copy of Windows is genuine
    > >before downloading security patches and other add-ons to the operating
    > >system. "
    > >

    > *SNIP*
    >
    > Last time this was suggested, the security community howled in outrage.
    > Many of the copies of Windows that're online aren't legal, and refusing
    > them security updates is a sure way to ensure plenty of vulnerable
    > machines.
    > It's likely to backfire on MS, in any case. Faced with an order from
    > their ISP to patch up or **** off, at least some customers will change
    > OS. Particularly if it means they save themselves the several hundred
    > dollars it costs for a legit copy of Windows.


    Good riddance then

    obviously they want a free ride
     
    Adder, Jan 26, 2005
    #7
  8. Matt wrote:
    > " Aiming to crack down on counterfeit software, Microsoft plans later this
    > year to require customers to verify that their copy of Windows is genuine
    > before downloading security patches and other add-ons to the operating
    > system. "


    Just wondering, I've read in a few other places that security updates
    would still be availible, just no "add-ons"
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Jan 26, 2005
    #8
  9. Bruce Sinclair wrote:
    >>>" Aiming to crack down on counterfeit software, Microsoft plans later this
    >>>year to require customers to verify that their copy of Windows is genuine
    >>>before downloading security patches and other add-ons to the operating
    >>>system. "


    >>Just wondering, I've read in a few other places that security updates
    >>would still be availible, just no "add-ons"


    > I'd like to know how you can verify a copy is legit ? IIRC, it's the
    > hologram thingy (I might be out of date here) ... so emailing that might be
    > a bit hard :)


    slightly out of date, but you covered it below.

    > Using a s/w registration number assumes that the legal owner actually
    > registers theirs first. Nice assumption :)


    well I know of one guy who has got three identical machines(same model
    hardware), all using the same key... so I'll report what happens once it
    gets implimented... well, assuming I notice.

    Here at work we purchase all PCs without an OS/licience*, as we have a
    site licience, so no point in paying twice, however they still come with
    official MS stickers and an install CD.

    I assume that HP must just absorb the cost as I can't see them not
    paying MS for it.

    *according to the packing slip and our order.
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Jan 26, 2005
    #9
  10. Matt

    froggy Guest

    On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 10:59:57 +1300, Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:

    > Bruce Sinclair wrote:
    >>>>" Aiming to crack down on counterfeit software, Microsoft plans later this
    >>>>year to require customers to verify that their copy of Windows is genuine
    >>>>before downloading security patches and other add-ons to the operating
    >>>>system. "

    >
    >>>Just wondering, I've read in a few other places that security updates
    >>>would still be availible, just no "add-ons"

    >
    >> I'd like to know how you can verify a copy is legit ? IIRC, it's the
    >> hologram thingy (I might be out of date here) ... so emailing that might be
    >> a bit hard :)

    >
    > slightly out of date, but you covered it below.
    >
    >> Using a s/w registration number assumes that the legal owner actually
    >> registers theirs first. Nice assumption :)

    >
    > well I know of one guy who has got three identical machines(same model
    > hardware), all using the same key... so I'll report what happens once it
    > gets implimented... well, assuming I notice.
    >
    > Here at work we purchase all PCs without an OS/licience*, as we have a
    > site licience, so no point in paying twice, however they still come with
    > official MS stickers and an install CD.
    >
    > I assume that HP must just absorb the cost as I can't see them not
    > paying MS for it.
    >
    > *according to the packing slip and our order.


    what I was wondering was .. most sites will only download the updates once
    ... ( ie not download the updates each time for each machine )
    how are they going to police a site with some licensed machines and some
    unlicensed .. are they going to restrict the number of machines the
    downloaded updates /patches / etc can be applied to
    how is this going to stop the local yobbo downloading them once for his
    machine... then burning off a copy for his mates running unlicensed
    machine
    how are techs going to check to make sure they are only updating
    legitimate windows installs
    the list kinda goes on .. for seemingly obvious issues with the strategy..
    but no obvious answer
     
    froggy, Jan 26, 2005
    #10
  11. Matt

    axel Guest

    Bruce Sinclair wrote:

    > In article <>, "Dave - Dave.net.nz"
    > <> wrote:
    >>Matt wrote:
    >>> " Aiming to crack down on counterfeit software, Microsoft plans later
    >>> this year to require customers to verify that their copy of Windows is
    >>> genuine before downloading security patches and other add-ons to the
    >>> operating system. "

    >>
    >>Just wondering, I've read in a few other places that security updates
    >>would still be availible, just no "add-ons"

    >
    > I'd like to know how you can verify a copy is legit ? IIRC, it's the
    > hologram thingy (I might be out of date here) ... so emailing that might
    > be a bit hard :)
    > Using a s/w registration number assumes that the legal owner actually
    > registers theirs first. Nice assumption :)
    >
    >
    > Bruce
    >
    >


    IIRC its something to do with the hash code that the product key generates
    on installation which is registered with Microsoft for product activation.
    Its made up from values for the hardware thats detected and the windows key.
    There will still be people using cracks no matter what they do.
    It might increase sales of IEC cords with OEM windows packs.
     
    axel, Jan 26, 2005
    #11
  12. Dave - Dave.net.nz said the following on 27/01/2005 10:59 a.m.:
    > Bruce Sinclair wrote:
    >
    >>>> " Aiming to crack down on counterfeit software, Microsoft plans
    >>>> later this year to require customers to verify that their copy of
    >>>> Windows is genuine before downloading security patches and other
    >>>> add-ons to the operating system. "

    >
    >
    >>> Just wondering, I've read in a few other places that security updates
    >>> would still be availible, just no "add-ons"

    >
    >
    >> I'd like to know how you can verify a copy is legit ? IIRC, it's the
    >> hologram thingy (I might be out of date here) ... so emailing that
    >> might be a bit hard :)

    >
    >
    > slightly out of date, but you covered it below.
    >
    >> Using a s/w registration number assumes that the legal owner actually
    >> registers theirs first. Nice assumption :)

    >
    >
    > well I know of one guy who has got three identical machines(same model
    > hardware), all using the same key... so I'll report what happens once it
    > gets implimented... well, assuming I notice.
    >
    > Here at work we purchase all PCs without an OS/licience*, as we have a
    > site licience, so no point in paying twice, however they still come with
    > official MS stickers and an install CD.
    >
    > I assume that HP must just absorb the cost as I can't see them not
    > paying MS for it.
    >
    > *according to the packing slip and our order.

    Gee that must mean heaps of *spare* authentic MS ID Numbers!

    --
    >>Follow ups may be set to a single group when appropriate!

    ======================================================================
    | Local 40.9000°S, 174.9830°E |
    ======================================================================
    "I used to jog, but the ice kept bouncing out of my glass."
    Fools ignore complexity. Pragmatists suffer it. Some can avoid it.
    Geniuses remove it
     
    Collector»NZ, Jan 26, 2005
    #12
  13. froggy wrote:
    > what I was wondering was .. most sites will only download the updates once
    > ... ( ie not download the updates each time for each machine )
    > how are they going to police a site with some licensed machines and some
    > unlicensed .. are they going to restrict the number of machines the
    > downloaded updates /patches / etc can be applied to
    > how is this going to stop the local yobbo downloading them once for his
    > machine... then burning off a copy for his mates running unlicensed
    > machine
    > how are techs going to check to make sure they are only updating
    > legitimate windows installs
    > the list kinda goes on .. for seemingly obvious issues with the strategy..
    > but no obvious answer


    I think that this is covered by the only security updates will be
    available, I don't think that I have seen standalone MS Movie maker etc,
    only the security updates.
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Jan 26, 2005
    #13
  14. Collector»NZ wrote:
    >> Here at work we purchase all PCs without an OS/licience*, as we have a
    >> site licience, so no point in paying twice, however they still come
    >> with official MS stickers and an install CD.
    >>
    >> I assume that HP must just absorb the cost as I can't see them not
    >> paying MS for it.
    >>
    >> *according to the packing slip and our order.


    > Gee that must mean heaps of *spare* authentic MS ID Numbers!


    ~1500 PCs.
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Jan 26, 2005
    #14
  15. Dave - Dave.net.nz said the following on 27/01/2005 11:31 a.m.:
    > Collector»NZ wrote:
    >
    >>> Here at work we purchase all PCs without an OS/licience*, as we have
    >>> a site licience, so no point in paying twice, however they still come
    >>> with official MS stickers and an install CD.
    >>>
    >>> I assume that HP must just absorb the cost as I can't see them not
    >>> paying MS for it.
    >>>
    >>> *according to the packing slip and our order.

    >
    >
    >> Gee that must mean heaps of *spare* authentic MS ID Numbers!

    >
    >
    > ~1500 PCs.

    Now all we have to do to Destroy the Evil Monopoly that threatens our
    geek galaxy is publish yours and a couple of million other similar
    organisations numbers :cool:

    --
    >>Follow ups may be set to a single group when appropriate!

    ======================================================================
    | Local 40.9000°S, 174.9830°E |
    ======================================================================
    "I used to jog, but the ice kept bouncing out of my glass."
    Fools ignore complexity. Pragmatists suffer it. Some can avoid it.
    Geniuses remove it
     
    Collector»NZ, Jan 26, 2005
    #15
  16. In article <>, "Dave - Dave.net.nz" <> wrote:
    >Matt wrote:
    >> " Aiming to crack down on counterfeit software, Microsoft plans later this
    >> year to require customers to verify that their copy of Windows is genuine
    >> before downloading security patches and other add-ons to the operating
    >> system. "

    >
    >Just wondering, I've read in a few other places that security updates
    >would still be availible, just no "add-ons"


    I'd like to know how you can verify a copy is legit ? IIRC, it's the
    hologram thingy (I might be out of date here) ... so emailing that might be
    a bit hard :)
    Using a s/w registration number assumes that the legal owner actually
    registers theirs first. Nice assumption :)


    Bruce


    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to
    think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone´s fault.
    If it was Us, what did that make Me ? After all, I´m one of Us. I must be.
    I´ve certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No-one ever thinks
    of themselves as one of Them. We´re always one of Us. It´s Them that do
    the bad things. <=> Terry Pratchett. Jingo.

    Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
    (if there were any)
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Jan 26, 2005
    #16
  17. Bruce Sinclair wrote:
    > Isuspect, as others have suggested, that it will actually decrease their
    > sales :) We shall see ... assuming it aint vapurware of course :)


    they've been doing in a few areas for a few months already... nothing
    new, just expanding it out a bit, presumably they had no major problems
    in the initial areas.
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Jan 26, 2005
    #17
  18. Bruce Sinclair wrote:
    >>>Using a s/w registration number assumes that the legal owner actually
    >>>registers theirs first. Nice assumption :)


    >>well I know of one guy who has got three identical machines(same model
    >>hardware), all using the same key... so I'll report what happens once it
    >> gets implimented... well, assuming I notice.


    >>Here at work we purchase all PCs without an OS/licience*, as we have a
    >>site licience, so no point in paying twice, however they still come with
    >>official MS stickers and an install CD.


    > Yeah ... but one per machine ? ... or are you expected to roll out the one
    > legal upgrade to the other legal computers on site ? :)


    which are you referring to, my first of second paragraph?

    The first paragraph(friend of family), three machines, one licience, so
    "illegal".

    the second paragraph, my work, site licience, always legit... of course :)
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Jan 26, 2005
    #18
  19. "axel" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Matt wrote:
    >
    >> Was reading this earlier, might be of interest (dont think its been
    >> posted)
    >>
    >> " Aiming to crack down on counterfeit software, Microsoft plans later
    >> this
    >> year to require customers to verify that their copy of Windows is genuine
    >> before downloading security patches and other add-ons to the operating
    >> system. "
    >>
    >> Full Story:
    >> http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5550205.html?tag=nl.e589
    >>
    >> Matt

    >
    > Can anybody remember what "later this year" means in Microsoft speak ?


    Unless you are using a Traditional Chinese, Czech or Norwegian version,
    later means second half of 2005. Those three versions have to use it now.

    http://www.geekzone.co.nz/content.asp?contentid=3989

    --
    Mauricio Freitas, Microsoft MVP Mobile Devices
    http://www.geekzone.co.nz
    http://www.geekmac.com
     
    Mauricio Freitas, Jan 26, 2005
    #19
  20. Matt

    axel Guest

    Mauricio Freitas wrote:

    > "axel" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Matt wrote:
    >>
    >>> Was reading this earlier, might be of interest (dont think its been
    >>> posted)
    >>>
    >>> " Aiming to crack down on counterfeit software, Microsoft plans later
    >>> this
    >>> year to require customers to verify that their copy of Windows is
    >>> genuine before downloading security patches and other add-ons to the
    >>> operating system. "
    >>>
    >>> Full Story:
    >>> http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5550205.html?tag=nl.e589
    >>>
    >>> Matt

    >>
    >> Can anybody remember what "later this year" means in Microsoft speak ?

    >
    > Unless you are using a Traditional Chinese, Czech or Norwegian version,
    > later means second half of 2005. Those three versions have to use it now.
    >
    > http://www.geekzone.co.nz/content.asp?contentid=3989
    >


    Thats interesting, the article that you link to doesn't mention security
    patches at all, just access to extra goodies from the download centre.

    Now we have two versions of the story

    Microsoft tried this once with SP1 blacklisting some widely pirated
    activation codes, then suggested they would do it again with SP2 but
    didn't.
     
    axel, Jan 26, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Brunswick Lowe
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    387
    Brunswick Lowe
    Jan 13, 2004
  2. Doom

    legit product or dump

    Doom, Jun 21, 2004, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    713
    Network-man
    Jun 22, 2004
  3. Audi S4 pilot
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,098
    Audi S4 pilot
    Nov 28, 2004
  4. Look in my eyes and you'll find me

    Is X-Cleaner Legit? I think it may have wiped my registry. What do i do?

    Look in my eyes and you'll find me, Aug 29, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    727
    [ Doc Jeff ]
    Aug 31, 2003
  5. Legit copy of Windows 64-bit.

    , Jul 20, 2006, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    581
    Bruce Chambers
    Jul 25, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page