Slashdot Mirror
Free Upgrade From XP Home to XP Pro Lite
Novus writes "The Register reports that many of the features of Windows XP Pro, such as Remote Desktop and user management, can be enabled in Windows XP Home simply by changing two bytes in an installation data file. Another explanation can be found here."
If you are so bent on having the pro features and are willing to copy all the files off the CD, hack it, and then re-burn it (not to mention making sure not to screw up the bootable ability of the CD), why not just download Windows XP Pro? Both are illegal(take a look at the EULA), and downloading is easier and will still allow you to upgrade to SP2.
I thought Crippleware died out years ago , aparently not.
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
The EULA is not proven in court , however copyright law is .
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
Ok, yes in fact they do... somehow. They credit the c't magazine in their first sentence for the report. Shouldn't the editor also credit heise (c't) for that?
Or will we see some RSS-IT-news channel being credited for everything interesting in the near future?
Hidden conditions are illegal in a contract, as are unnegotiable terms, changing terms, terms that violated enunicated rights, and just about everything else in an EULA. Hence, an EULA is not a legal contract.
VNC is far better? *cough* RDP has a ton of features missing in VNC, such as:
- Sound support
- Automatic color depth and resolution changing support
- Remote printer/serial port access
- Client file access
Remote Desktop is also much speedier. Even with the latest, greatest, fastest version of VNC, Remote Desktop is still much more responsive. On Windows XP, you can even use a certain file from an old Service Pack 2 beta and support multiple remote users on the same machine.and the eaiest way I've found to avoid getting "crap" is to not run as administrator. *poof*, no more problems. I'm surprised more people haven't figured that out yet.
Yeah, that's way harder than using regedit to modify install files and copying the boot sector of the install CD to a new one...
Sincerely,
Your friendly neighborhood slipstreaming advocate
It's not like it's easier on Adobe to make differerent, variously crippled versions of Photoshop. It's actually more work. They do it because it works for their shareholders: you sell a basic version with features disabled for $x, and make users pay for more features. Yeah, it's the same cost to them to print a CD either way, but the price of things is ALWAYS set by what people are willing to pay, not by what it costs you to make.
At least in the non-free software world. Rather different economics there.
Can someone explain the difference between hacking XP Home to turn it into XP Pro and downloading a warez copy? Is one slightly less wrong than the other?
Alternatively swing by Best Buy and steal a copy.
after all, Microsoft did that with NT Server and NT Workstation. Andrew Schulman had shown that with a few registry tweaks, NT Workstation could be turned into NT Server quite a long time ago. It even fooled server programs like MS SQL Server, Exchange, SNA Server, etc that they were running on NT Server. The only big difference were the support files found on NT Server that NT Workstation did not have.
If someone looks at it hard enough, they can find registry tweaks to turn XP Starter Edition into a non-crippled version. It might resemble XP Home then. Then apply the XP Home tweaks to turn it into an XP Pro Lite type OS.
When you think about it, Microsoft keeps the kernels the same, but makes changes to the registry and support files. Tweak the registry, and you may be able to overcome limitations.
The IP connection limit is built into the TCP/IP stack of XP, but most P2P networks have a modified version that allows the user set their own number of connections, like say 100. I am sure that is against the EULA, but people run it anyway.
The more crippled Microsoft makes an OS, the more people will discover or find or invent a way around the crippling. Take DRM for example, people have already found ways around it, the new DRM on an Intel chip just makes it more of a challenge for people to find a way around it. Most likely someone will find or invent a way to fool the DRM functions that files are legit, via software or something.
Microsoft refuses to understand that it must meet the customers' needs, and that making a system more complex or trying to lock it down more, only upsets the customer. They will either seek underground methods to get around the limitations, find an alternative, use an older version of software/hardware, or just learn to suffer with it. In any case, it causes Microsoft bad PR, and a bad reputation.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Maybe the Slashdot editors recognise that people have natural rights to modify and share information. Once you know something, nobody has the right to tell you what you can or cannot do with it.
Just because it is illegal does not mean you should obey such unjust laws.
Luke-Jr
An entity sells an operating system. After purchasing the operating system, taking it home, opening the package and inserting the media into their computer they are informed that they must agree to an EULA, which is then presented on screen in such a way as nearly all people don't read it.
Some of the patches that are automatically installed by this entity on the purchaser's computer change the EULA.
The Purchaser uses the product in such a way as to not comply with the EULA
Ethical question: Is the purchaser simply stealing, are both parties at fault, or has the producer of the operating system tainted their hands, so that the purchaser's actions are justifiable?
Situation 2:
An entity steals an operating system from the late great Kildall. Using illegal practices to force their (and only their) stolen operating system on consumers, and abusing their monopoly to the extent that consumers pay so much above what would be market value in a competitive environment that the CEO of the entity becomes the unassailably richest man in the world. The entity is convicted of abusing the monopoly, but has become powerful enough that they can manipulate the penalty, and continue to practice in an illegally anti-competitive manner.
A person purchases a product from this entity, and pays for it.
Ethical question: Is paying for the product ethical, given that it increases the money and power of the criminal entity? Or is stealing the only conscionable way to acquire the products of this entity?