BBC Hails "fair" Microsoft XP SP1

Richard Bown writes "Continuing their current trend of only giving you half the story the BBC have this article on how fair and equitable Microsoft are these days. No mention of EULA changes."

Comments

Karma Whoring

[Wind_Walker]

I think I'll link to a similar article at CNN. It's a bit less biased.

And, for anybody who is using XP, they say that the software (like IE, Media Player, etc) is hidden. But if I double-click on an HTML file, does it come up in IE anyways? Or does it say "File type not recognized"?

</Karma Whoring>

Re:Karma Whoring

[clontzman]

It's actually at the root of the Start Menu and has been added to the left-hand nav of the Add/Remove Programs dialogue. I looked at it and it seemed fairly free of threats. You can say, "Use Microsoft programs," "Use current programs" or "Custom."

Re:Karma Whoring

[ncc74656]

It's actually at the root of the Start Menu and has been added to the left-hand nav of the Add/Remove Programs dialogue.

Win2K SP3 adds a similar feature...but I'd recommend against installing it. In addition to the issues previously noted WRT SP3, I've found it's great at destabilizing Win2K. Two of my machines started bluescreening whenever a DirectShow filter graph involving their webcams (Orange Micro iBots) was closed, and I just spent the past weekend in Phoenix reloading everything on my father's computer because SP3 hosed his MSN setup and caused printing to run at a glacial pace. Now that all of the affected machines have been put back to SP2, all is well with the world again.

Re:Karma Whoring

[unitron]

Nice to see someone else who knows about Major Armstrong and that it wasn't just Farnsworth that got screwed over by "General" Sarnoff. A good biography of Armstrong (if you haven't read it yet and can find an old copy somewhere) is "Man of High Fidelity" by Lawrence Lessing.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Not that this is a warez site or anything

[Schnapple]

The word is that there are two widely circulated keys in particular that are targeted. Not sure if SP1 will disable those systems or if it will just refuse to install

Not True.

[NetJunkie]

You can put in a new serial number on a running system. Do a quick search on deja and you'll find it.

Re:So how is the story unfair?

[ericman31]

The main problem with this article is that BBC makes it sound as if there was already a final settlement in the anti-trust case. Nowhere in the entire article do they point out that there is only a proposed settlement, and that Microsoft's actions are being taken to try and forestall more restrictive penalties by the government. And, finally, the method used for "hiding" the MS software doesn't help much for those who don't want to use them because the other software manufacturers have to write their software to take advantage of the changes. Of course none have done it yet, so you actually cannot change your default browser to Netscape right now, no matter what MS says.

None of that is MS bashing. This is. MS is a monopoly. They know they are a monopoly. People like Steve Ballmer within the executive circle of MS have no intention of letting go of their monopoly. Unless Judge Kollar-Kotelly takes very restrictive and punitive measures against MS they will just continue to do this, again and again. The obvious solution, one which would actually benefit the country economically, is to first penalize the company for it's actions, and then, after the penalty phase, split the company into at least two parts, perhaps three, with each new company restricted in a fashion that will help to prevent future monopolistic behavior. The first time I bought MS Office (Office 95 Pro) its cost was 10% of the cost of a reasonable PC ($200 vs. $2,000). Now the cost of MS Office is $499 (Office XP Pro). A reasonable PC is about $1,000 (office automation, web surfing, etc. not a gaming machine). Not only is Office XP not 250% better than Office 95, it's not even 100% better. I refuse to use Office anymore. Unfortunately at work I have to, since it is our company standard. That may change, according to some rumblings I'm hearing. In the meantime I will never again spend any of my own money on MS products.

Re:Not that this is a warez site or anything

[BiggyP]

nope, he'd just have to use a generator with a valid license key to produce a valid product key and edit about 5 registry entries replace the old ID with the new product key and reboot, then tryu again, it might break windows update, but it should allow the service pack, worked for the betas anyway.

Re:Not that this is a warez site or anything

[Jugalator]

It won't install on a copy with the infamous FCKGW-... key from the Devil's Own release, released months before XP went retail. They also disabled another one, which is pretty unknown and not at all as wide spread it seems.

Some are saying that MS disabled all serials for the "Corporate Edition" starting with F and P.

What happens if installing on SP1 with the FCKGW key then?

You'll get a message similar to "this key is pirated -- blabla -- you need to immediately obtain a legal key". Then I recall your copy of XP needs activation and you get this timer before it's *completely* deactivated and you're *forced* to phone MS to use the crap. :-)

Needless to say, there are ways to change a key before installing SP1 without uninstalling XP.

Also, there are a key generator (yes, that "Blue List keygen") available for XP that generates keys not detected as illegal by SP1.

So, in the end, not much has been changed in the warez scene from this. Integrated Windows XP SP1 Corp Ed. ISO's with working serials are already floating around.

Re:So, Is SP1 out?

[Tim C]

As you used Windows Update, it almost certainly worked out what components you require, and downloaded only those. The 133meg file size would be for the whole thing, including updates for components that you don't have installed and/or don't come with your version of XP (i.e. Home vs. Pro, language/locale, etc).

If you look around on the Microsoft site, you'll find that there's a "network install" (or similar) version of the service pack, that's the entire thing in one file. It's designed for sites that may have a variety of different configurations installed, so they can essentially mirror it locally. 133meg sounds about right for that sort of service pack (the Windows 2000 ones have generally been around the 100+meg mark).

Cheers,

Tim

Re:I don't see the story.

[griblik]

I think the issue here is the way the changes are portrayed.

When I RTFA, it seemed to suggest that Microsoft has made major concessions to the world's anti-monopoly bodies by removing a few icons from the desktop and start menu, and that MS is now a much nicer company, having given in to the little people.

The problem there is that most people assume that if the icon's not there, neither is the program. Not everyone's as tech-savvy as the average /. reader - if they can't see it, how do they tell the difference? If the BBC says it's an improvement, surely it must be?

Mainstream media educates the public, and it'd be good to get mainstream media to understand the issues and technology involved (don't forget, the writers at the BBC are professional _writers_, not coders).

If you think this 'change' has been misrepresented to Joe Public, mail the BBC and let them know what's up. You can't fault them for not knowing everything, but you can let them know where _you_ think they've got it wrong.

btw, please be nice - this bunch are usually good enough to have a real person reply to your comments. Show a little respect for people doing something right ;)

Re:Hiding them? Get rid of them!

[Dirtside]

You do understand that there's a difference between a company that gets a monopoly because it simply has a better product, and a company that gets a monopoly because of unfair business practices? "Monopoly" doesn't automatically equal "anticompetetive." Besides, if everyone uses Linux all of a sudden, who has the monopoly? Red Hat? Gentoo? Mandrake? Slackware? Debian? Linus Torvalds himself?

This /. item is utter, utter crap

[nagora]

For the hard-of-reading the posted BBC item says:

1. MS have made changes due to a ruling on "fair" competition. The word "equitable" does not appear anywhere in the story,
2. That MS has been "found guilty of abusing its market dominance",
3. That the DOJ thought that MS was abusing its market share,
4. That nine states are holding out and that a ruling is pending, and
5. People have been installing software to cut out some of MS's crap already (PC Lite).

The item could have gone into more detail but what it does say is pretty straight-down-the-line factual and is not "half the story" as the poster claimed. Sure, there's no mention of EULA changes but, since they're not legally binding anyway who gives a toss? It's only a small piece, not the history of Windows!

TWW