Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Changes Tune Again On SP2 Installs
KidHash writes "Following on from last months Slashdot story, it appears Microsoft has changed its tune with the BBC reporting that SP2 will not install on XP installations using the '20 most pirated product IDs.'"
What is ironic is that the people pirating the OS are tech savy enough to know that there are security holes they need to patch, as opposed to Grandma Millie who just wants to look at pictures of her grandkids on the intarweb gadget (or senior pr0n, you never know...)
stuff
Fairly unrelated, but has anyone else noticed that it usually takes about 10 times longer for an XP service pack or update to install versus win2k?
This is based on observations doing windows updates on similar spec machines, 20+ win2k boxen and a few XP boxen.
Please help metamoderate.
Okay here's the major weakness - after the machine chugged away processing the SP2 installation for approximately 45 minutes, it suddenly decided it couldn't find files that apparently existed.
This stuck the whole routine in a loop, and forced me to reboot, at which point, my XP installation was trashed and could not even be recognised by a Windows XP recovery CD.
Yeah this sucks, and beta software is unstable, but surely not THIS unstable?
Since installing SP2, I've found the most annoying thing is the box that pops up constantly when you need to reboot your machine - especially since it is set to "reboot" as default. So you'll be tapping along on xchat, hit enter to send a message, but at that point, the little reboot window has decided to maximise itself from the system tray as it will do approximately every 15 minutes. As you hit enter, rather than sending your message, you are confirming a reboot. 30 seconds later, everything's shut down - including the loss of unsaved documents..... Now does this really seem usable to you?
Add to that that most of the firewalls and virus checkers I have tested it with are not recognised by the new security tool (which is hardly a tool, as it does nothing more than show you if you have the software installed in the first place), and the fact that SP2 has made a clunky operating system even S-L-O-W-E-R, and I have to wonder exactly *why* it's taken so long for Microsoft to produce a poor firewall, a splash screen to show you whether you have a virus checker and firewall enabled, and an irritating popup to constantly remind you to reboot your machine after installing an update. *sigh*
Sunday you're Thinking Different, Monday you're a huge tool, paying too much and waiting to think like everyone else.
The next time you get 1000 spam messages with forged headers due to a unprotected machine, that cant be patched due to the key code, you will care.
This issue is not about the actual pirates, its the effect they have on the rest of us, and having Microsoft extend the patches to them only makes sense.
It doesn't take ANY extra effort, cost or time on the part of Microsoft to do this, and benefits paying customers.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
It's not as straightforward as you think. Microsft isn't just screwing that particular user -- they're screwing (virtually) everybody connected to the Net.
A case in point: even though there's a patch I have received hundreds of copies of Swen/Sobig. Now imagine that users of pirated XP installations can't get the patch. Imagine the chaos.
So by screwing that user, they're screwing me. Even though I HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG. That's just not on.
Allergy advice: Contains eggs.
Funny... I've tried SP2 (RC1) and really liked it. And I don't even use Windows (the installation was in my father-in-law's laptop).
:)
The RC1 does NOT include an AV (contrary to popular belief), but does recognize a bunch of AV vendors and is capable of verifying if the DB is up-to-date.
They now have a bunch of visible security measures (not counting the hidden ones like bugfixes and NX). It has the firewall enabled by default, and a "Security shield" or something like that in the systray and control panel. The damn thing is a PITA unless you have 3 things:
- All critical updates in place AND auto-updates enabled
- An up-to-date AV
- The firewall enabled
If all 3 are OK, the shield stays out of sight and doesn't bother you. Oh, and Windows Update is MUCH more intuitive. The updates to IE6 are minimal, but very useful:
- No ActiveX unless you allow it on a case-by-case basis (including WinUpdate, but that may be a bug)
- Options like "Always accept content from this provider" are now _hidden_ by default instead of being visible checkboxes in the installation dialogs. Users who push every checkbox and "OK" button in sight will now have to go an extra-step in order to blindly accept these things.
Remember: this is coming from a guy who does not use Windows; not for "philosophical" reasons, but simply because I do a lot of Unix-related work and like developing on my workstations and laptops. I also get more kicks out of using Linux or OSX.
That reminds me of one of the old 1980s Compaq ads with John Cleese. He was a stuffy uptight businessman who had just bought an IBM PC. When the narrator questioned him about his choice of computer vs. the cheaper and more capable Compaq system, he defiantly said:
"It was a sound decision...
Wrong, but sound."
(He did several Compaq ads back then; funny stuff. I wonder if they can be found anywhere on the net. His turtleneck-wearing Apple snob impression was another standout.)
a) Finding pirated copies of MS is about as easy as finding pirated music on KaZaA. It's not exactly a problem.
b) Joejobs. Imagine a virus that swaps your installation key, inserts fake messages in Word/Office documents and so on.
c) The real reason: They don't want to. They want to turn pirates into legitimate purchasers "softly" - kinda like boiling a frog. If they made it really anal to pirate Windows/Office many people would be likely to switch - look at how many compare x86 without software to Macs with software - since x86 software is "$0". Or to Linux, they both cost $0 and are thus equal.
Particularly the massive amount of skilled programmers hacking away at pirating software - imagine if a significant portion of those instead used their skills to develop software for say Linux. No, Microsoft knows what they're doing. It's simply about sacrificing a little profit right now, against keeping the platform and monopoly profits a while longer.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
And you'd be 100% correct if it weren't for the fact that Microsoft themselves have given us a set of instructions that allow one to change their XP activation code. There's even code there so you can write it as VBScript. When they first announced their activation system I thought that Windows XP would be a difficult program to pirate in such a way that it can't be differentiated from a valid install. Thanks to the handy instructions they've given us I've been proven wrong.
--Obyron
That has to suck... or maybe we're just smart enough to have our web browsers lie and say, we're running MSIE 6.01 WindowsXP, 1600x1200 24bit color.. eh? :)
XP is better as an emoticon anyways.
Here's teh offtopic part, and a shameless plug for a really awesome Window Manager. Try XPde out. It's really awesome at the look and feel of windows, especially when you want to move someone over to Linux without telling them.
Now I know that sounds evil, but hear this story out. My sister wanted me one day to fix her "slow" computer. Turns out that she has 100's of spyware, literally, running on her computer. Not to mention trojans and viruses. I did a backup of her documents, put them on a zip disk and virus scanned that on my comp, just to make sure. Then I installed Slackware Linux, and used XPde (quite successfully I might add) as the WM. Installed Gaim, OO.org, Mozilla, software firewall, gimp, and misc games (frozen bubble rocks!) Total install in just around 250mb. No crashes, no viruses, nothing and it's locked behind a NAT that allows no incoming/outgoing ports except what's specified for IM services and outbound httpd traffic.
She didn't know she was running linux for a few months until she went to install a program! (Insert WineX installation at this point. Went well too!)
My point. Most people dont care what they use, and if the conversion is successful (I do many like this, only with people I really *KNOW* and trust me), they'll learn to champion linux to people who are easily intimidated by "techies" and zealots who want to install linux for you because MS is "7!^3" (evil)
To summarize this success story by my sisters quote: "Windows SUCKS!, where's my cute penguin?"
----zoloto
It probably won't really do anything except make the pirates seek out an alternate serial number. Frankly, I wish they'd ban all pirated copies from downloading service packs... Then, more people would look for an alternative operating system. Microsoft is too smart for that though. They know that a lot of these people help sustain their platform (believe it or not) by making the userbase even larger.
I really can't tell what they are trying to prove by this. Maybe they are just experimenting with a limited number of people to see what the outcome will be.
They can pretend that they hate piracy of their products, but they hate OSS/Free software even more. Locking out non-payers would probably just hurt them more than help them, causing a lot of people to defect to Linux and Macs.
The problem for Microsoft is that their desktop OS market share has only 1 way to go from here, and that's downwards, which is going to freak out stock analysts, and give them a lot of bad press. They can't compete with Linux on price, and the days of competing in usability are numbered. All they will soon have to compete on is public opinios, and in this arena, they have the benefit of a practically infinite publicity budget vs Linux's zero budget.
This anti-piracy move is going to force at least *some* of the people who won't pay for an OS to switch platform away from pirated XP straight into the arms of Linux - of course people in the know realise this won't be a large number, because codes 21 onwards will take 99% of the switchers, but it's enough for their FUD PR purposes.
I'm guessing MS are doing this as a preemptive move so that when analysts point to their declinig share of the market and Linux's rise, they can blame it *all* on pirates switching platforms and claim that it's not going to translate to a loss of revenue. They will probably be branding Linux as 'the pirate's OS' pretty soon.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
Redhat will not let you patch your Enterprise Linux system unless your subscription fee is current.
Why does no one complain about this?
Well, what do I know - - I run a small network. But with Windows 2000 Pro on the desktops, 2000 Server and Linux in the back office, and an enterprise license for Norton AntiVirus Corporate, we keep 250 or so machines clean and updated. We run the free MS SUS for updates, by the way. Not a bad little system - - we set up Active Directory to force clients to hit our SUS server once a week, and have another method of shooting out emergency patches rapidly if we need to. XP seems to be another black eye for MS - - I don't know any admins who have been pleased with upgrades from Win2k to XP. Thank Zeus we didn't buy Software Assurance and feel compelled to "get our money's worth" by moving to this pretty, but deeply flawed piece of work from Redmond. Reminds me of the Windows Me fiasco - - it was all about needing profits, had nothing to do with improving the product line. XP is another one for the "Bob" file.
It's only funny until someone gets hurt. Then, it's hilarious.
Pirates = "I want my Windows XP"
MS = "I want your money"
MS could easily charge a few bucks per patch or charge another fifty bucks or so per service pack so that our friends that are using extended demos can keep their OS up2date (hint hint)while continuing to *ahem* try out the operating system. Over a few years MS would easily recover the cost of the pirated copy, the pirate wouldn't have to be a test person for new viruses with old exploits and it would enhance the security for the net as a whole.
The problem with MS is that they HAVEN'T adopted the cell phone or razor blade model of business. Let's face it. If the OS were REALLY inexpensive then they could reasonably charge for services outside of the OS such as service packs or feature upgrades. Red Hat, IBM, Apple, they all do it and are profitable.
Well yes and no. It costs ISPs and businesses loads to deal with compromised PCs.
Ultimately you will probably receive more spam due to this decision.
The best thing they could have done is neuter the network connectivity when applying SP2 if the OS is pirated.
If they know what they're doing, Microsoft will deploy some sort of an exploit of the bugs that SP2 would fix.
Said exploit can be some form of a 'phone home' service, that reports the illegal copies of Windows to the SPA and appropriate agencies for license enforcement.
I'm not saying it would be a good thing, but it's very feasible and it would shake things up a bit in the Warez world.
resigned
Here in mexico, piracy is a major concern... everybody uses a pirate copy of windows, nobody ever thinks about paying for a copy, it's not an option.
Microsoft did the same thing with SP1, everybody downloaded a crack from cracks.am and changed windows' serial, SP1's restriction was bypassed, I 'm sure microsoft hardcoded most (if not all) all those serials, but I bet a new batch of serials will come.
The solution is not "punishing" the market or whatever (can't find the right word), the solution would be lowering the prices, it's not like they NEED the liceses to be so expensive, is it?
In the mean time, Mexico (for one) will continue the piracy practices.
Fortunatelly I dont need it, I own the windose version that came installed in my notebook, and I use linux 99% of the time anyway.
Cheers