Slashdot Mirror
MS Requiring More Expensive Vista if Running Mac
ktwdallas writes "Mathew Ingram from Canada's Globe and Mail writes that Microsoft will require at least the $299 Business version of Vista or higher if installing on a Mac with virtualization. Running the cheaper Basic or Premium versions would be a violation of their user agreement. According to the article, Microsoft's reasoning is 'because of security issues with virtualization technology'. Sounds suspiciously like a 'Mac penalty' cost that Microsoft is trying to justify."
God, I just really hate microsoft. I'm so sick and tired of their shoddy products, obnoxious business tactics, and anti-customer attitude.
Old news, that is a requirement for running virtual on any machine not just Macs. Beside, Mac doesn't let you run OSX under virtualization anywhere!
If sounds like a Mac penalty because you didn't listen. They require the pricier version of Vista for ALL virtualization, not just on Macs. If you want to run Vista in a VM on a PC you're under the same requirement by the EULA.
jX [ Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. - Einstein ]
Just run windows 2000
Sooooo does that also include their virtualization products? Hmmmm?
This seems sort of counter productive to me, i would think they would want peopele to run vista on as many machines as they can.. Especially if there is a chance they can push a user away from another OS. But then again, they are a monopoly, they dont always have to do what makes sence.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I wouldn't install any version of Vista on my computer if they paid me.
Any of your doubts as to why your software continues to be pirated, cracked, or otherwise made available to those who you think have no desire to pay is in part directly because of your continued arbitrary restrictions against otherwise legitimate users.
What kind of Vista-exclusive software are you gonna run? (Especially under virtualization)
... was never so appropriate.
"Security vulnerabilities?" You mean how you can isolate a VM away from the rest of the world and if it gets infected with a virus, you can just shut it off, blow it away and start over?
THAT kind of security vulnerability? How incredibly, incredibly lame.
+++ATH0
Really, how many times are you planning to run this "story"? Maybe the plan is to stop once the FUD meme is spread to your satisfaction like all the others before?
There are enough things to criticize Microsoft over. These FUD campaigns are going to backfire one of these days. You can only claim you're being FUD'ed for so long before everyone realizes you're no better.
First of all this story is weeks if not months old, and a dupe to boot. Second of all this applies only if you run vista in/as a virtual machine not if you install on a mac that also has virtulization (for another OS say). In other words you can use boot camp to boot to your heart's content but can't run the cheaper Vista version in a VM under OS X just like everyone else in the fucking world who wants to run vista under a VM.
I mean what the hell is up with Apple users and their inferiority/persecution complexes? This applies to all VMs and likely the number of non-mac users running windows under a VM (developers, linux users, etc.) is far larger than the number of Mac users who'd be doing it.
Who are the consumer-level users who want virtualization going to be?
Go ahead, you can take as much time as you want to think about it.
+++ATH0
And what, Apple lets you virtualize OS X?
The anti-virtualization clause is likely unenforceable anyway *. However, most businesses that use Windows buy volume license agreements under contract, and the contract states that they will obey the EULA. That brings the EULA from the gray area into enforceability for them.
* They know that their DRM system can be cracked easily by virtualization. They might be able to win under the DMCA because of this.
I'm not a lawyer, I just read a lot.
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
If your going to install visa using virtualization whats stopping you from using basic?
Assuming you bought the software and hardware you can do whatever you want with them.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
XXX#######
That's because the Microsoft agreement states that anyone running Parallels can't use the $199 basic or the $239 premium edition of Vista. Instead, they have to buy the $299 business version or the $399 ultimate version of the long-anticipated OS.
/. don't read TA.
So is there something besides the EULA that is going to stop people, like some kind of detection software or warning? Because most people don't read the EULA or care much about it. Like most
Evolution is a state-sponsored, state-protected religion.
This has been known and written about since back when Vista was first released for business customer's at the end of last year. It doesn't suck any less, but why are we talking about this today?
Someone beat him to this "news". Hell, it was even discussed on Slashdot before. You can read the *first* article about this here.
bork bork bork!
cpu as it's 2 of them and home can only use 1 cpu.
Microsoft and Apple are competitors!!
Ka-wow!
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
I have tried running a legitimate XP copy (SP1) on Ubuntu with Innotek's VirtualBox - and the WGA gets the idea I am running an illegimate version of Windows even after I input my key into it (stored bought boxed version). Instead of explaining why it's bad (perhaps the license isn't pricey enough but this is only an SP1 disk so it shouldn't count should it? I didn't agree to those term on the Eula back then:) - they bring up a Survey that was extremely offensive - asking me how I felt having an illegimate copy of windows, what I would do with an illegimate copy of windows, and so on and so forth (they made sure to say "illegimate copy" in every question and generally treat you like a 5 year old idiot).
None of this makes me want to go out and buy MS products more - the ones I have apparently don't work even though the terms on the EULA back then have never mentioned virtualization.
They won't allow even Security upgrades based on this. I can forsee lawsuits coming from network owners and ISP because they are refusing to patch their own defective software and allowing so many computers to get compromised and botnets to form, etcetera. Fine, don't let me get upgrades for greater functionality, but at least give me those security patches.
Like the RIAA, the tighter MS grasps, the more will slip through there fingers. I refuse to be extorted to pay a higher price for software than what I already paid for it just because it is running in a situation they have not forseen 4 years back when the copy was new.
Microsoft is scared of virtualization. All of a sudden, there is no longer a requirement to have Microsoft software driving your real hardware. Especially with Parrallels able to run Windows Apps on your desktop without even looking at a Virtual Machine window, MS, I'm sure, can feel it all slipping away.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
THIS JUST IN - APPLE requiring MORE EXPENSIVE PC if running MAC OS!
Microsoft wanted to penalize Mac users over the use and development of Microsoft Office, and this really isn't much different - except that there is no point for a Mac user to use Vista.
I use Parallels desktop to run Windows XP, which runs all current software that I use on Windows (no surprise), and to test web designs in Internet Explorer when I don't want to go to a regular Windows PC.
So since Windows XP can already serve to run the apps anyone would need to run, other than the news factor, Vista s of no consequence to any Mac user.
I am open source, and Linux baby!
What difference does it make to MS if Windows Vista is installed on a Mac or Dell? A customer buying Vista at retail for a Mac sends more dollars to MS than Dell does for an OEM copy. It's a good deal for MS.
Never let facts stand in the way of a juicy conspiracy theory.
Enjoy your stay.
You can run Vista Home Basic on a Mac with Boot Camp, if you so desire. Just not from wthin OS X.
How about, don't run Vista? Mmmkay? If someone tells you they need it, run away as fast as you can. We got OSX, Linux, BSD, Solaris, AIX, etc etc. Tell the Microsofties to get stuffed. Don't use their crap. Even if you know you can get around it, pirate etc etc. Stop encouraging them. Don't do business with people who rely on it. Use open standards... Or at least don't bitch and complain about them when they pull their monopolistic BS if you do use and support their crap. DUUUH! Sick of this shit.
I'm not required to buy anything from Microsoft? Have you tried buying a PC without Windows?
In any case, just because I don't buy MS products doesn't mean their actions don't affect me. Have you tried visiting the many web sites thatt only work with IE, with another browser? How about opening all the files people create and distribute using MS's proprietary formats, because they do succumb to MS's strong-arm tactics?
The days of being able to ignore "what they do over there" are over, because now what they do over there can affect me here.
...when virtualization can be called a security problem.
This is like saying that having a chroot "jail" for BIND opens up a hole.
Or like saying black is white.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Fortunately in America we have the right to decided whats done with our own intellectual property. The consumer has the right not to buy ANYTHING from microsoft. The American consumers rationality can be debated elsewhere.
Someone gave me a copy of the Windows XP that runs on Macs. I installed it any never used it.
Lets look at this though. Who are the primary people who use this stuff?
The average user? no. I have a word processor, web browsing, chats, media players on my Mac. I can send e-mails just fine, thank you. I'm very happy with my mac.
The gamer? no. Games don't run well under virtualization.
The Mac guy who works for a business who's backwords management team decided to base an enterprise solution on something that only runs on windows? DING DING DING. we have a winner. Microsoft hopes that they will be willing to pay more. Businesses typically have deeper pockets then the average consumer.
This is old news, and not Mac-specific, but since it was re-posted anyway: What extra features does the $299 Business version offer to protect Windows against security issues with virtualization technology, and why aren't these features in the Basic and Premium versions?
If it does offer something extra then I'm interested to know, but the linked article basically states that Microsoft has "restricted the use of Vista to versions that it assumes are likely to be run either by corporations or by sophisticated users."
So in other words, assuming this is correct, they're openly using higher pricing as a security defence? (ie. "Let's make our product more secure by charging more money for it!") If so, then that's a new one and it seems kind of backwards.
Boot Camp is not virtualization; it's a set of tools (firmware patch, driver CD creator, NTFS formatter with nondestructive partitioning) that allow Apple hardware to boot Vista directly. You won't violate the cheap Vista license if you use it under Boot Camp. You only need the expensive version for Parallels, which lets you run an OS in a window as an OS X app (real virtualization).
First of all, this only matters if you think EULAs have worth outside of toilet paper. Second, the actual language of the EULA is
"USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system"
So if I install it on a real machine and then run it within a virtual machine on that device, I'm violating the license. But if I install it on a virtual machine to begin with, the license ends up being self-contradictory.
You can not run the host and guest OS of Vista Home using the same key. Microsoft gives you extra permissions to run several copies of Vista business on the same machine using only one license. Nobody is stopping you from running Vista Home Basic under Parallels if you bought a dedicated license for this purpose. In fact, it would be dubious since Mac+OSX+Parallels can be viewed as simply another computer and, for all its ills, Microsoft is not practicing hardware lock-ins.
Microsoft sees virtualization as something businesses are willing to pay for. They don't want businesses cheaping out buying the less expensive versions.
As a home user, a very good reason to run my OS in a VM is hardware portability. If my PC dies or I upgrade my motherboard, I want any reinstall to be painless. With some motherboard upgrades, Windows crashes and burns.
Give me a stripped-down Linux or BSD with just a kernel, a VM layer, a boatload of device drivers, and some way to install more device drivers and install, manage, and launch a single guest OS and I'll be happy. I should be able to install this VM host OS, install Vista, then move that drive to any modern PC on the planet and have it "just work." When bootable USB memory sticks and USB-booted motherboards become commonplace, portable pocket Vista becomes a reality.
Just don't make me pay more than an OEM license for Vista Home Basic.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
If you want to use a strict definition of virtualization... no processor since the Pentium 1 can run the cheap version of Vista because the processor core is RISC and all instructions are translated from IA32 to RISC. Good move, Microsoft.
The only security issue I can see is from Microsoft's perspective: if Windows is merely a guest OS hosted on Mac OS X, Linux, BSD, or other, it is obviously not the users' primary operating system. Since it is not their primary operating system it is clear they are either not a fan of Microsoft, or even worse, are loyal to a competitor's product, be it free/OSS or proprietary. Since the days are numbered for earning revenue from that customer, what better way to maximize profits from that customer by requiring them to buy the products with the highest profit margin, despite the fact that the customers do not need the eye candy and other non-features the premium versions provide?
It's all about short term gains. Rather than focusing on maintaining long-term growth (Microsoft has already grown as much as they can and they know it) Microsoft has turned from being one of the most customer-friendly companies around to being one of the most hostile; revoking your first sale doctrine rights (e.g., you cannot transfer a COMMODITY PRODUCT from an old PC to a new PC), spying on your computing activities (genuine advantage) and jacking up prices when the customer is receiving LESS value with the new OS (it hogs RAM and processor, boasts slower I/O AND is DRM-heavy). Also, they claim that F/OSS is bad because it does not come with a warranty or support. Well, have you ever read the Microsoft EULA? It comes with no support, and warranties and liabilities are EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMED.
Where is the value in the backing of a big company again?
My company has developed custom software solutions for customers, one of which is an interesting software registration (Windows activation-like - well, more like Adobe CS's, but about three years before Adobe implemented theirs) architecture. We back these works for higher with a warranty, e.g., if a genuine bug is found, we fix it and issue the fix at no charge. Feature requests, of course, are billable (time/materials, basically the cost of doing business) but we don't waive warranty.
IMHO all software companies should back their products with support and bug fixes. Period. Microsoft doesn't; they downplay the impact of bugs (see yesterday's
Again, where is the value of Windows over F/OSS solutions?
Is it any shock they are requiring you to buy the high-end product to run as a guest OS? Of course not; Microsoft has nowhere to go but down, and they are fully aware of it so they are scramling to profiteer as much as they can before they collapse.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Depends on how you look at it.
:)
If you are a corporate customer, the price tag is nothing for a copy of Vista Business. So corporate customers are not going to have a problem.
For a non-corporate user thinking of a switch to Mac but is scared of needing an occassional Windows application, the extra expense might dissuade from a switch attempt.
Win win if you ask me...
I don't really care. I switched to Mac a few yars ago (from Linux, though; I never used Windows), and I just today orderd one copy of Parallels, and also one copy of WindowsXP -- before MS discontinues it. As I upgrade my hardware over the years, I'll just keep moving the (virtual machine) WinXP image from one machine to the other. Because I use Parallels, the underlying hardware will appear to never change, so WinXP should run "forever", no matter how often I upgrade the actual hardware. So with any luck, I wont ever have to deal with Vista, virtualized or not.
On a separate note, is anyone seeing a spike in retail WinXP sales? Just curious...
Your sig is incorrect. I believe that your final term should be (50*i)% imagination.
You can run any version of Vista in VM and Redmond can spin on a big fat one. Do Microsoft really think they have any legal recourse? The fact is they are a monopoly and certain software is only available for their OS, that users don't trust MS and choose to sandbox their user-hostile crapware in a VM is none of their concern. The VM restriction in their EULA specifies an additional install, if you install your single licensed copy in a VM instead of on a physical machine you are in the clear. Afterall a license is a license and a normal company would be thankful for the business. Fuck Microsoft if they think have any say in this at all.
If you erase your Apple box and install a non-Apple OS on it, I think you are allowed to run an Apple OS in a VM on that box.
Who would want to do that? Me.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
and what about the non-fud version of this: apple forces you to buy a proprietary pc to run their os.
I'd like to read the license for Vista Business 32 for myself. That way, I could at least see if it something I would even consider running in the future. Does anyone have a web link?
Or is it like Scientology...you can only read the fine print while at sea.
So if you need to run the business version, that must be more secure. But reality is that it probably has more components and therefore more parts to break.
What people are missing is that the VM restrictions are for a VM install in addition to the physical machine. 1 license 1 OS instance unless you use the supa-dupa Vista which lets you install on a physical machine and in VM (2 instances). The language appears onerous but isn't, RTFEULA until you understand it!
It's the article writers, submitters, and Slashdot admins. Loaded, misleading headlines and articles--especially ones mentioning Apple--tend to generate the most attention, which gets them lots of ad revenue.
By reading this you acknowledge that you have read it.
These jackass licensing games are exactly why I stopped using Microsoft altogether. Sure, it was a bit painful to move my entire life off Windows and Office and learn new system, but I have absolutely, positively ZERO regrets about it.
This licensing crap is yet another example of the lawyers screwing it up for everyone. For a company that used to make good software with licenses that made sense, you guys could fuck up a wet dream nowadays.
C'mon... security issues in virtualization?! HA! If you assholes are so worried about it, why don't you fix your software for a change?? (Oh wait, there are still horrible usability and sizing issues with MS software that's been around for 10 years, so we know the software will never be fixed. OK, so I'll venture a guess that this is just another ploy to steal more money from the masses for your crap.)
Why not actually provide full disclosure and LET ME DECIDE?
Are you guys taking lessons in lying and bullshit from the folks in office right now?
Attention Microsoft corporate, I have two words for you: good riddance.
>If you are a corporate customer, the price tag is nothing for a copy of Vista Business.
If I am a corporate customer, the last thing I want to hear from a vendor is that my money they want for their product is "nothing."
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Does Vista flash your BIOS?
Otherwise running vista on any computer requires you to run it on top of another OS.
Your BIOS has an OS that Vista runs on top of.
Windows has always been a guest OS - on top of DOS. =) The biggest problem I have with M$ and security is the required reboots after updating. You have no choice in this, if you don't you are nagged to death by the OS or worse rebooted forcibly. The other issue I have is with automatic updates checking for new updates everytime you boot. This goes not just of Windows but for Norton as well. if you are dilligent you can get away turning these off, and updating once a week manually, but for the common user their systems are turned into bricks for the first five minutes of use, because you have X number of programs phoning home, on a network connection that hasn't even come up. I know you can schedule times for updates, but if you miss that time, it checks as soon as you boot. add this, plus the spyware you find on a lot of systems, and you get frustration.
you could spend your apparently worthless time masturbating. It's more enjoyable and it accomplishes just as much.
Like anyone cares about user agreements.
Don't virtualise.
Just install on your mac through boot camp.
it's quite simple, this will be a footnote in history, as MS crackers remove any DRM which prevents it, and release it to the p2p nets.
so.. where is the button to moderate the story flamebait?
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Of course not; Microsoft has nowhere to go but down, and they are fully aware of it so they are scramling to profiteer as much as they can before they collapse.
... Microsoft would like to own it. Nothing they've done so far is likely to keep them in the gravy, but taken together, who knows? Never forget that that company wants to have us all by the short and curly so as to extract maximum dollars from us, and they'll do it by any means they can.
Would that were true. Oh, I agree, they're really putting the screws to their customers (changes in the past couple years to corporate pricing and forced upgrade cycles are more obvious examples of that behavior than this VM licensing issue) but Microsoft is not a company to be counted out. Absolutely, I agree, as a dominant monopoly they've achieved such a high degree of market penetration (at least in the U.S.) that they are hard-pressed to keep the growth curve pointing in the right direction and the stockholders happy.
However, what they are doing is scrambling to try and find other means of support, so that when their core markets of Windows and Office do finally succumb to the open source onslaught, they'll be firmly in charge of something else that we can't live without. What that might be I don't know: I doubt Microsoft does, either, at this point. What do you think Microsoft's continual forays into other markets are all about? Television, embedded systems, search, email, Web services, game consoles, MP3 players, you name the market
Don't let the current focus on Windows and Office distract us from what it might be doing in other areas. Microsoft has vast resources and the will to use them.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Umm no, its not 'nothing'.. Agreed its not high in large enough volumes, but its not free. Have you ever dealt with Microsoft on an enterprise volume license agreement before? Sounds like you haven't.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Slashdot operating system related article score:
[ 9 ] Microsoft hate
[ 9 ] Mac love
[ 0 ] Linux love
[ 18 ] out of a possible 30
One day we'll get an article which hits 30. I predict it'll be about DRM.
No, but it does replace a lot of it..
One can argue that bios isnt a true OS anyway. Its only by really stretching the rules is it considered one.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Try running Virtual PC under XP Home. Nope...not supported. So it's not surprising that Vista would be any different.
Specifically, Mac users. That's what I was driving at.
+++ATH0
OK dumb question. What's to stop you from virtualizing the cheapest version of windows vista you can get anyways?
One is always at liberty to ignore parts of an agreement if one is prepared to weather the consequences of doing so. For example, Microsoft is capable of denying you access to your programs or the OS itself after you've installed it. You would be at liberty to sue them for a refund on the cost of the purchase of the OS.
What would be the repercussions of ignoring this mandate not to install on a VM? I quake at the prospect of losing some aspect of support from MSoft. I say install and wait for their lawyers to request that you forthwith uninstall while they offer you a refund on the purchase price.
Fuck it right in the ear.
There's a new game in town, greasy emo kid. It's called UNIX. We're here to stay, and no amount of wrist-slicing is going to change that.
+++ATH0
Wow, people really take things literally here... Just saying it is not a lot of money in the scheme of things for a business license. That's all...
Developers are the business users. Mac users are the consumers.
This is the reason why this really IS an MS swipe at Apple.
+++ATH0
You want to run one of the most insecure systems on the market, which also comes with all kinds of rediculous restrictions and deliberately broken features, has shoddy driver support, breaks all backwards compatability, and by the looks of it will be replaced within a few years. You also want to use the version which has had most of the features stripped from it in order to save money ( when there are free alternatives available ). You furthermore want to run this in a virtual machine on a restricted hardware platform... I mean, the virtualization restriction in Vista is lame, but seriously, you're asking for it when you literarely go and hand pick all the worst bits you could possibly find for your system. This is a bit like using software developed in Visual Basic to implement a software based DRM system for selling mediocre songs encoded at 64 bit mp3 using a WEP "secured" network charging your customers using "one click transfer" investing the revenue in SCO stock and basing your offices in the US. Seriously, why not just sell your hardware on e-bay instead, at least that way you get to keep some of the investment...
Actually, yes I have. So if needed a specific item, just buy it. A couple hundred is nothing... Just saying it is not a lot of money in the scheme of things for a business license. That's all...
Most of the time when Microsoft talks about security, they are talking about the security of their income flow from intellectual property. Malware installed in their operating system is a risk to their IP, so they go after malware too, from time to time. But mainly it has to do with protecting their IP, and the income it provides.
When seen in that light, most of their statements about security make perfect sense.
On the other hand, it's their operating system. They can do anything they want with it. Does it have to make sense? Not particularly, since they are effectively a monopoly in that market.
why is this on /. again not only as a dupe but logically proven fud?
is slashdot's hatred for microsoft so massive that even lies and misrepresentations get passed along as truth?
just goes to show that the open source faggots got nothing going on.
When MS talks about 'security' you have to ask 'Is this security in the computer systems meaning of the word or in the financial security sense of the word?'
In this case its fairly clear that MS is mainly concerned with financial security.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
The assumption is that only corporations will have the desire to run virtualized Windows, and they certainly have the cash to afford to pay extra for Windows. Lots of products have a corporate tax - last minute air fares, flashy hotel rooms, box seats at sports venues, etc. If something seems ridiculously overpriced then chances are corporations have a need for it.
MS will see mass piracy on the Mac front and be able to show everyone that Mac Users are horrible pirates.
This is part of the license. It's not locked in the software. Who actually bothers to read EULAs anyway? Hell, more damage has probably been caused by publicizing this issue since now some people are going to pay more to feel safer, even though there's no way for Microsoft to actually enforce this policy since a trademark of good virtualization is that the thing being virtualized doesn't know it. I don't know why MS did this, but I severely doubt Bill Gates is hunched in his office, cackling maniacally over a defaced picture of Steve Jobs right now. With the move to Intel, Apple has become a hardware vendor, which Microsoft likes. I know there's been an adverserial relationship there, but I really don't see Microsoft trying to jack up the price of their product just to spite Mac users. That article is sensationalist garbage.
Vista can run in a VM? I didn't think processors were fast enough yet to run a virtual Vista machine.
Sent: Sunday, January 24, 1999 8:41 AM
[...]
Subject: ACPI extensions
One thing I find myself wondering about is whether we shouldn't try and make the "ACPI" extensions somehow Windows
specific.
It seems unfortunate if we do this work and get our partners to do the work and the result is that Linux works great without
having to do the work. Maybe there is no way to avoid this problem but it does bother me.
Maybe we could define the APIs so that they work well with NT and not the others even if they are open.
Or maybe we could patent something related to this. This is clear evidence that they (at least) considered using patents and deliberately creating incompatibility to hurt competitors, even under the guise of being "open". Don't you think this virtualization pricing thing just might be less a concern about security (?) and more an attempt to do something similar via the EULA?
W
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
come the Fuck on ./ how many times are you going to run this bs with the same FUD'd out omg m$ hates da mac users title??
this is a well known story with vista and virtualization there is no fucking need for this
in fact running this over with such as bs slant is kinda pissing me off at this point.
good day.
actually I am happy to see you, however that is in fact a banana in my pocket.
VISTA sucks...if I want to run Windows under virtualization, I will run XP Pro.
So what?
"Running the cheaper Basic or Premium versions would be a violation of their user agreement."
Yea, and we shouldn't rip that sticker off the mattress either.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
VMWare would already support virtual OS X sessions under OS X, however VMWare has not done so because of concerns about just this very reason.
Wait a minute - Mac users already pay the 'Mac-penalty' imposed by Apple, now Microsoft are going to add to the burden?
I now have two Macs. They're shiny... pretty... beautiful operating system. Put MS software on 'em? It'll be a cold day in hell. Second thing I do after dragging the terminal applet to the dock is to drag the MS office demo software to the trash can. Microsoft could be offering to pay me to install Windows on my Macs. It still wouldn't happen.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
What's the "Dell penalty" that Apple charges for running OS X on an Inspiron?
If anything, this only shows how Microsoft is far less predatory and monopolistic than Apple.
Apple's restrictions on its OS is why people will not pay for it when trying to run it on generic hardware.
It's amazing to me the number of posts that A. Say the EULA is unenforceable or B. Say Software licensing doesn't exist, you are actually buying a product, or C. Claim no one abides by the EULA.
In the US, EULA's were given legal weight by Congress a number of years ago, there is a big chunk of Case Law that backs up that congressional action. Second, without EULA applicability the GPL isn't worth a dime as it IS an EULA. You don't sign a contract you don't own the software, you have a license to use it, that license is the GPL. It's no different than anything Microsoft does, except they actually present the opportunity to read the EULA when you run software the first time, how much GPL software presents the opportunity to read the contract you are agreeing to by using the software? Third, the GPL and Microsoft's EULA are nothing more than a contract to use the software, they have different terms, but without that contract you have no legal right to use the software. Again, the GPL and the Microsoft EULA are no different in this respect. Fourth, contract law governs EULA's, if you don't agree to the EULA then you are can't use the software anymore, if you breach the EULA you are liable for Statutory damages or damages determined by a Jury.
The fact is, if you don't like the terms of your license with Microsoft, DON'T USE THE SOFTWARE. If more people voted with their feet and started using Linux exclusively then Microsoft WOULD feel the pinch financially. But when you all act like children claiming you don't have to abide by contracts then no one will take you seriously, as you are acting like nothing more than a spoiled child.
Microsoft included the virtualization clause in Vista for a reason that only they know. But it's part of the contract so if you actually feel you need to abide the law and respect other peoples work then you won't use the versions of Vista prohibited from running in a VM if you intend to run Vista in a VM, and this had NOTHING to do with Apple all you little whiny apple children as the clause doesn't even mention apple. The likely target was VMWare and the other big VM groups.
Dual core is not dual processor.
The mac pro is dual dual-core or dual-quad core
... The BSA announces plans for a series of raids to be conducted on a million registered home users of Microsoft Windows Vista to check for violations of the user agreement not to run Vista under virtualization. The raids will begin shortly after the end of a 60 day amnesty period during which users may uninstall their BSD, Linux, or OS X systems and install Vista directly on their PC. "No one ever needs more than one operating system", said Bill Gates in a message left after inquiries for an interview.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Why would anyone give a flying fuck what the license agreement says?
How would they even begin to enforce this? Why would I even have the slightest reason to worry about it?
Believe it or not, Microsoft actually cares a lot more about that stuff than it looks like from the outside. I worked for Microsoft for a couple of years when they acquired my former employer, and I was surprised by the extent to which Microsoft beats the security drum. We had a senior programmer on our team whose responsibility was nothing but security and code review.
Do they tend to execute poorly on stability, and especially security, anyway? Without doubt. But believe it or, it isn't because they don't care.
I just don't get why people think "Apple does it" is an excuse. It's still absurd, and most likely unenforceable legally. The only real difference is that, so far, Apple doesn't seem likely to make any real attempt at enforcement, while MS has spent countless man-hours coding trojan horses into their own products to allow them to enforce such terms extra-legally.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
It isn't a penalty on Windows systems normally. Basically under the XP scheme, you had to have a license for each and every VM you had. This could get kinda expensive for doing prototyping and such. With Vista, if you have a system running Vista Business, that automatically gives you the right to install it in 4 VMs running on the host. More or less it is licenced per system, not per instance. So basically it ends up being cheaper and easier for most. I suppose it is more expensive for Mac users, in theory, but then if you wanted to run both a bootcamp copy and a VM copy of XP you technically needed to buy two licenses.
Seems like much ado over nothing to me. MS is (in my opinion) improving their virtualization licensing, but they aren't doing it with their cheap versions. Well, I'm fine with that. Also I haven't checked real carefully, but you might discover that indeed you can run the cheap editions in VMs, you just have to buy a copy per instance and treat it as real hardware.
Is it to limit liability? The standard end user license agreement already disclaims any liability in case of data loss or corrruption so requiring certain versions of the software to avoid data loss actually seems like a legally weaker argument. It sounds like the operating system was designed with known security holes in it. If someone claimed data loss from running under a virtualized environment, this double standard in the EULA might get a judge to throw it out altogether.
If you need to test an app on Vista then presumably you are developing an app for Windows. If this is true then you probably already have a MSDN subscription. This subscription provides you with MSDN versions of M$ software so that you can have test enviroments to vet your software. This MSDN software comes bundled with its own license so this does not apply anyways.
$diff terrorists hippies
$
$rm -rf *terrorists *hippies
want to run Vista on a Mac because...?
That's like putting glue on your gym shoes.
"Vista" means "a view or panorama." And, with Microsoft's ability to use it to look at anything on your system, that's what it is - a vista to YOUR data!
Privacy and Microsoft Vista - in the same sentence? Not unless the words "don't mix" are in there...
BAH
Does Apple allow MAC to be run under virtual machines? NOOOO.....
Do we seriously have to remind you? If you don't buy a separate computer for each version of vista that you install, we don't get our fair share of your money.
But Vista running on a regular PC with virtualization will also require Vista Buisness, right?
Apple tries to prevent people from using OS X on other hardware at any price. So even if this "Mac Tax" were real, Microsoft would still be treating people far better than Apple does.
I don't see why they shouldn't charge more for the right (not just ability) to run virtualised on a system. It applies to ALL virtualisation options (VirtualPC, VMWare, not just Macs) and virtualisation is in fact more a business than it is a home user's domain.
So why not tell people they need the business version, and only offer real support for the business version?
As for the security issues of virtualisation, sure.. well.. I can't think of any, but if I could, there are probably issues you could easily skirt around by using the disk encryption features inside the virtualisation (therefore your virtualised disk is not prone to attack from the host OS's myriad bugs and trojans) and other cute features they dropped from the Home and Home Basic edition.
Mac users are paranoid, that's all. Linux users too. Anything that costs more than what came free with their OS is a "rip off". Sorry, but people have to make money, and you guys have to spend it to get all the features.
... so any version of Vista can run on a Mac without any kind of penalty. Only VMs are affected, and then on all platforms, not just Mac. Can we go on or do we really have to repeat this every five minutes?
on all points. Even though I was just playing the same game the troll was for fun. :p I love my C2D MBP and run Windows on it only very irregularly. Don't really need it except to play exactly one game and interface with my phone.
+++ATH0
why anybody wants to buy a mac and install windows on it still beats me
see here: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/85914
It is not allowed to limit the Home edition to phyiscal machines. (at least in Germany, probably everywhere in the EU)
I'm consistently amazed at how fast slashdotters will rip you for violating EULAs, as they spool up another terrabyte of bittorrent or Usenet music files or while they are watching any one of their 1000 blockbuster movies. The moral issue for me with this would be to buy the cheaper Vista version, take it home, and install it on my Mac. Ok, so I bought it for my pc and with the intention of putting it on my pc...oops I guess something happened between the front door and my PC. Seriously, until they make it NOT WORK, I could care less what the EULA says (for home use). My concern, as a consumer, would be taking the cheaper version home, only to find it doesn't work during the "activation" phase, because I'm violating the EULA. In this case, caveat emptor, mia culpa.
The usual mac media/hype/blame/pr/fanboy lot are again throwing up a stink over nothing. You are not allowed to Virtualize some editions of Vista, whether it be PC or PC(Mac). Simple as that, its not descrimination, as you mac users aren't Windows users at all it would be stupid of MS to put up extra barriers in your way. BTW this will not count if you are multi-booting, only if your running inside Parallels (on a Mac) or even VMWare (on a PC).
Pirated XP though because
a) I have an system restore XP that comes with crap, makes the HDD RAID1 and wipes the Linux partition off it
b) Can't agree to the XP EULA, so a pirate version ignores that
c) activation
d) only needed for the latest hardware
slshdotters, as far as any general consensus can be found on the subject, disagree that an EULA is a valid contract.
They'll generally rip you for beraking the GPL, but
a) this is isn't a use license (so not a EULA or a contract)
b) GPL is free of monetary cost if you don't like the license for copy, pay the developers for the code
As to your caveat/culpa you can't be held responsible because you need the advice of an IP lawyer in your jurisdiction to understand what the EULA gives you in your area and what rights you have. And, since they are a monopoly, you can't beware of this buyer, you have to deal with them.
Some day, either Apple will someday address the technical and legal issues of virtualizing OS X or they will face the commercial consequences - unlike Microsoft who have a 95%+ monopoly and can give commercial consequences the finger.
I'm sure that VMWare and/or Parallels would be delighted to work with Apple on implementing some safeguards to ensure that it will only run on VMs hosted on Mac hardware - if they see a demand. However, the main reason for wanting to virtualize OS X are:
The last two are the important markets but are "academic" until there is a stable, mature virtualization product for Mac. Personally, I'm happy with Parallels as a way of running Windows apps, trying out Linux distros etc. but, looking at the support forums, I wouldn't trust it for "production" yet. Both Parallels and VMWare are capable of delivering an industry strength product but are, clearly, currently concentrating on the big market, which is a consumer product for running Windows.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Has Apple said "never, ever" to virtualization, or is it just that negotiating with Apple over how to do it legally is not on Parallels/VMWare's "TO DO" list (while they're busy racing to grab the lucrative windows-on-Mac market)?
Anway, if you don't like Apple's policy then it is incredibly easy to avoid buying a Mac because Apple do not have a 95%+ monopoly in the personal computer market - the only problem is which alternative you choose because Microsoft have a 95%+ monopoly in the PC market so even if you plump for Linux or BSD you'll find that lots of people take for granted that you can run Windows software.
A lot of good software is Windows only because, what with Microsoft having a 95%+ monopoly in the PC market its quite hard for software houses to justify supporting other platforms.
So, if a demand for virtualized Mac OSX does develop and Apple continue to block it then Apple will lose business. Microsoft, however, have a 95%+ monopoly in the PC market and can get away with all sorts of customer-hostile tricks - forbidding virtualization of the cheaper Vista versions doesn't impact on their income from the "Microsoft tax" on new computers and it doesn't really affect the big, corporate, volume licensing clients much. The people who it affects disproportionately are those using Macs and Linux who need to use a few Windows apps - not only do they (technically) have to fork out for a "full version" of Windows - already 2-3 times the retail price of the OEM version - they now have to buy the most expensive version too (or will do when XP is no longer easily available).
P.S. did I mention that Microsoft have a 95%+ monopoly in the PC market - which is why slashdot (plus the authoriities in every country that has any sort of monopoly/antitrust legislation) apply different standards to Microsoft and Apple.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
When the author is completely wrong, not just wrong in a part but totally wrong.
If I write software or music I own it not you, I may license it to you on whatever terms I choose, period.
You may pay me to use it as I choose, not you or don't use it, really simple. A lesson in copywright law for the galactically stupid.
If I decide you may only play my music on a certain device or standing on your head that is completely my choice.
Have you read the conditions on the Audio CD you just bought? You license the music not own it, same with software.
Any attempt to use the stuff outside the license terms is illegal and you would be in the wrong.
deal with it.
Almost everything you want about Microsoft, applies to most proprietary software vendors. In Microsoft's defense, at least they don't require a hardware dongle that costs a minimum of $600. Also, the Ultimate and Enterprise versions include rights to use multiple copies of them in a VM on the machine. They may be limiting options to specific versions, but that's what you get when governments demand things.
If 76 Trombones really led the big parade, why did they have anyone else in it?
Why on earth would anyone *want* to run Vista rather than XP virtualised on the Mac? The supposed advantages of Vista, Aero and DirectX 10, won't work well or at all under virtualization, and who needs "protected mode" when you can turn the entire virtual machine into a *real* sandbox. All Vista gives you in a virtual environment is more overhead and inconvenience.
What they mean by "security issues" is "if you run Vista in a virtual environment, you'll be able to intercept our 'secure audio path' and 'secure video path', so we're going to make you pay extra to discourage people from using Vista in a virtual environment to make a digital recording".
Since Apple doesn't produce low end machines we can't do much comparison - but high-end Macs are actually cheaper than Dells with comparable specs. So who's paying more?
Besides we're all Intel slaves now - so the real premium is for the OS and hardware extras. I personally love the fact that my aluminium MBP case comes with stuff like [user programmable] light sensors, Sudden Motion Sensor accelerometer, magnetic trip-safe power connector etc. Other PCs might have some of them (or all) but the package Apple offers is superb. And the second hand value is far better - not to mention that they last longer for most users.
Besides I don't mind paying for Windows if I have to - but I would pay twice that for OS X any day. The only thing the Mac platform is missing is games - and we're getting them now...
"Has Apple said "never, ever" to virtualization, or is it just that negotiating with Apple over how to do it legally is not on Parallels/VMWare's "TO DO" list (while they're busy racing to grab the lucrative windows-on-Mac market)?"
Both companies have made statements to the effect that they've explored the option, but can't do it commercially as long as Apple forbids it.
"Anway, if you don't like Apple's policy then it is incredibly easy to avoid buying a Mac because Apple do not have a 95%+ monopoly in the personal computer market - the only problem is which alternative you choose because Microsoft have a 95%+ monopoly in the PC market so even if you plump for Linux or BSD you'll find that lots of people take for granted that you can run Windows software."
a) OS X is not easier to avoid if you want a Mac, which seems to be the crowd making the most noise over this.
b) You can still dual boot quite easily.
"So, if a demand for virtualized Mac OSX does develop and Apple continue to block it then Apple will lose business."
The demand is already here, people are doing it illegally. It's enormously useful for anyone doing administration (testing patches before they're deployed) or developing software (testing against different OS revisions), on servers (where things are rapidly approaching the point where you can't be taken seriously without it). It does cost Apple business.
"P.S. did I mention that Microsoft have a 95%+ monopoly in the PC market"
I think you may have touched on it.
"which is why slashdot (plus the authoriities in every country that has any sort of monopoly/antitrust legislation) apply different standards to Microsoft and Apple."
Antitrust legislation makes shitty behavior legally actionable in the right circumstances, it doesn't make shitty behavior acceptable for everyone else.
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
why the hell would M$ want to inhibit sales of Vista, REGARDLESS of the platform? Hardware is not their domain of interest here (and don't tell me about IntelliMice and Xboxes and Zunes). Parent is absolutely correct. Calm down.
(%i1) factor(777353);
(%o1) 777353
Mac users can run Vista Home Basic legally all they want, you know. It just has to be the host OS, with OS X as the virtualized client -- not the other way around.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Could you elaborate on what you mean by loophole?
I can imagine that it could be something like XP's license being tied to a physical machine. This could be interpreted as you're allowed to run several instances (virtualisation) of the same OS as long as you do it on the same machine. Am I right?
Has anyone seen one of the original PC's-on-a-Card for the Apple // series? At $1k I could never afford one and have yet to see one used.
Or they can just use Bootcamp, a boot manager won't run afoul of even the Home Basic EULA.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Why buy a top-of-the-line BMW then put used Volkswagen parts inside?
Why buy a Mac and put Windows in it?
Illogical.
This has nothing to do with security. Microsoft wants Windows to be the primary OS on home users computers. They already get the sale of a single-user license but they want more. They want to be able to sell license to prorietary formats that IE, WMP, and the like use to content-provider. For that to be successful, they have to guarantee that the audience is using Windows and the default content applications. If Windows is running as just a guest OS, then they lose the control because the user is probably using other alternatives. The don't need that control with business because delivering content isn't a selling point and they have a good lockin with Office.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
You're wrong, badly wrong, on two counts
1.
- the poster claimed "Neither GPL or BSD put *any* sort of restriction about what you do with the software !"
- Redistribution is something you can do with gpl software - but it IS restricted - you must comply with the restrictions laid down in the gpl.
Or are you now going to claim that redistribution is somehow not something you can do with gpl and bsd software? Even the original posters' "hint that the gpl is a distribution license" implies that there are some "restriction(s) about what you do with the software".2
Think about what you wrote - its probably not what you meant, and its certainly not true, in any country, even the former Soviet Russia, where copyright distributes YOU.
Microsoft isn't supporting the sales of copies of OSX? Heaven forfend!
I don't see anything preventing Mac owners from using the cheaper OEM versions of Vista, though.
-Rich
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
And the poster was correct. Neither the BSDL nor GPL put any sort of restrictions on what you do with the software. Period, end of story.
Both serve only to give you permission to do things that copyright law prohibit by default. You can twist and turn and torture your phrasing all you want, it's still the truth, and you're still just spreading FUD. And, to return to the actual point which was being made to begin with, it doesn't pretend to or attempt to limit your rights to *use* the software, the rights that copyright law recognises but the proprietary licenses under discussion purport to do away with.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Copyright law does NOT do what you said. You wrote:
No matter how much you try to twist and turn, that statement is a total untruth. Just to make sure you don't accuse me of misquoting you, here again is what you said, word for wordEither you really don't have a clue, or you're a troll (and a pretty lame one at that).
Again, I challenge you to find ONE country, just ONE, where "Copyright law prohibits distribution of copyright material and derived works entirely." - your words, not mine. Or did you mis-speak. Or are you going to hide behind a "you know what I meant," imputing that its other people's responsibility to read your mind as well as what you wrote?
Its the same with the question of the GPL and restrictions. The post didn't say "USE" of the software. You keep harping about how "it doesn't pretend to or attempt to limit your rights to *use* the software" which is NOT what the post said ... it went much further. Read it again:
There's a world of difference between using software on your computer, and "no restriction about what you do with the software", which would include not-so-incidental things like redistribution - where the GPL does in fact impose its requirements. The post goes on to contradict itself, acknowledging this in a back-handed way by then saying that the GPL is a distribution license. Distribution is something you do with software, and the statement that the GPL imposes no restrictions on what you do with software is therefore false on its face.So is you broad assertion that the GPL "does not add restrictions - it functions entirely to remove them." Again, your words, not mine. SCO would be very happy to believe that the GPL doesn't impose any restrictions - IBM is countersuing them for SCO's violations of redistributing IBM's copyright GPL material outside of the restrictions imposed by the GPL. Perhaps you're confusing the GPL with the BSD license? The original poster mentioned both ...
Anyway, why not provide some concrete evidence to back up your claims? Where is this mythical country where "Copyright law prohibits distribution of copyright material and derived works entirely"?
The GPL does not prohibit distribution. Copyright law prohibits distribution. The GPL grants permission to distribute subject to certain conditions. It takes nothing away. It only grants MORE than you have by law. That's the bottom line.
Back under your bridge, troll.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
to ruin your mac with windows let them come to an end. buy not using them shit only a real zero has windows i need it fo work well i dont need that kind of work that bad. when looking for a new job make sure they dont window.
I'll say it again - you aren't getting off that easily for trying to BS your way out of it:
You said:
This is SO wrong.
Again, show me ONE country where this is true. Just ONE.
Oh, you can't.
Because you were wrong, but you can't admit it. And yet, after being caught pulling factiods out your rectum, you still have the temerity to post this:
Hmmmm ... methinks the "gentleman" doth protest too much ...
Look, just admit that copyright law doesn't "prohibit distribution of copyright material and derived works entirely" before everyone starts laughing at you. I mean, really, are you still going to persist in claiming something that is so obviously not true? Everyone else here knows about the fair use, first sale doctrine, editorial review, parody as derived work, and educational exceptions, just to name just five off the top of my head. Even ONE exception is enough to show you're wrong.
Again, show us just ONE country where "Copyright law prohibits distribution of copyright material and derived works entirely"
Just.
. one
. . . lousy
. . . . . . country.
Heck, I'll make it easier for you - lets make it one lousy country, county, state, province, city, town, borough, district, or municipality where "copyright law prohibits distribution of copyright material and derived works entirely." Some little backwater of 5,000 people. Out of a population of 6-1/2 billion, certainly you can find one ...
Let's also add that Window on Mac has been a commercial product for many years.. since before Windows XP. In fact Microsoft actually BOUGHT one of the companies that provided PPC support and provided that product for several years with no version restrictios. So, now that intel macs don't need TWO Microsoft products to run Windows, Microsoft wants to jack up the prices to preserve their monopoly status in the OEM market. After all, if Apple users can buy Intel hardware AND legally run 3 OSes that puts Microsoft's OEM contracts in serious jepordy.. remember how they fought BeOS back in 99 when BeOS tried to get installed, for free to any OEM that would have them. With all the press about Apple and Linux, OEMS are chompping at the bit for something else they can't have.
I'm curious about parallels. They created a version that allows you to run from the Boot Camp installed OS while inside OSx... I wonder how that will work as the OS isn't truly "virtual" and it's on the same licensed machine.
is, of course, Windows Genuine Advantage. (Isn't that name terrible? Perfectly accurate if by "Genuine" your mean "Real" and by "Advantage" you mean "Pain in the Ass." Parallels worked fine with Boot Camp. It even took a second install for the virtual machine version in Parallels. Both authenticated or "sucked up to teacher," or whatever you call it. But then, Parallels came out with the Beta for the version that worked from your boot camp install, and used the coherence trick, so I could now run the CNN player, for example, floating on top of OS X, with no Windows in sight. Yippee. Only-- each time a new Beta arrived, Windows thought it had been installed on a new machine, and started freaking out. Well, four beta versions later, and two phone calls to get the 25-digit number, everything quieted down. Now, I threw away my virtual hard drive and just booted into XP, or ran OS X but kept access to Windows apps from the Boot Camp partition. No additional installs, right? One install runs it all. Good? But then the new VMware for the Mac arrives Mac Fusion Beta, and this too supports boot camp. I hesitated, thinking it might screw up the Parallels boot, but it didn't. I booted right up into Boot Camp in VMWare -- but wait a minute, what's this? You got it: Windows Genuine Advantage thinks I'm moved it to another machine. So I booted into boot camp, and found that I was a button press away from authentication. Panic forestalled. Users should simply not accept this degree of pain in the ass. If y'all crusade about music and movies and DRM, you're just letting Microsoft ream you. This is ridiculous.
The copyright owner can sell me a 'license' to modify (extend) my rights to it regarding -distribution and reproduction- (after all that's what copyright should be all about) of such work, but in no way what I can do with it in the privacy of my own house. It's MY copy and I'll use it for whatever I fucking like.
...OR ELSE FUCKING WHAT?
I asked a similar question the first time this story was reported here on Slashdot, and never did get a satisfactory answer. So, any lawyers or law students out there, or people who've been sued for violating EULAs, please, enlighten us all on this issue.
Say Company X (MS in this case) owns some copyrights and some patents and some trademarks, and some physical equipment and resources and facilities (land). This covers about everything they can legally own - all they can exercise exclusive control over. So, they exercise their right to use their patents in designing some software, exercise their copyrights to create (or pay someone to create) a bunch of copies of that software using equipment they legally own and materials (blank CDs, cardboard and paper for boxes, etc) they legally own in facilities they own or lease, and then market it using their trademarks, in storefronts they or someone else legally owns, on on websites they legally own, etc.
Now, I legally walk into a brick-and-mortal store, or legally go to CompanyXStore.com, and I legally purchase a disc from them, with legitimate money from my legitimate bank account that I legitimately earned, and on that disc I now legally own is a legally-made copy of Company X's software, and I take it back to the home that I own or rent, stick it in the computer that I legally own, launch the installer, and suddenly up pops a whole bunch of legalese which says, in effect, that I may not use their software in such-and-such a way (say, I can't run it under virtualization). And the first thing that comes to my mind is...
Lets see... I own the disc? Check. Copy of the software on it was legally made by the copyright holder or a licensee? Check. I own the computer and all associated hardware it's going on? Check. I own or otherwise legally occupy the place the computer and I are in? Check. I'm not trying to sell anything under Company X's trademarks? Check, I'm not selling anything, I'm just using it. I'm not trying to create anything using a patented technique? Check, I'm not creating anything, I'm just using it.
So on what fucking planet, under what crazy-assed law, am I under any obligation to do what some scary digital note that an installer pops up says? Ooh, watch me now, here I go, I'm installing Vista consumer edition under virtualization(*)... oh there it is, heavens no! Ok Microsoft, come and get me for stealing your property! Wait no, all property concerned here, I own. Oh, so it's copyright infringement? Except you made the fucking copy yourself. Patent infringement? I'll admit I'm a little hazier here, but I'm pretty sure my lawnmower manufacturer, who surely has some patents on their lawnmower designs, can't dictate what type of grass I can mow with the damn lawnmower, so it looks like you're up shit creek here too. Trademark infringement maybe? Except nothing is being traded, and even if it were, I can sell a legitimate MS Windows CD as a legitimate MS Windows CD all I want, so long as I don't try to pawn my own OS off as new MS Windows Omega Edition. So come on, you say I'm not allowed to do this, and now I'm calling you out on it. I can't do that... OR ELSE WHAT? You'll cry? Or write me an angry letter?
(*) Disclaimer - above account is fictional, as I wouldn't touch Windows with a 10-foot pole.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Since it is my copywright work.
You have NO right to it or to copy it except that which "I choose to grant you" which can be as little as no right at all.
since my grant to you is called a license I can choose the terms of the license.
now go back and play in the sandpit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#The_exclusi ve_rights_of_the_copyright_holder
The phrase "exclusive right" means that only the copyright holder is free to exercise the attendant rights, and others are prohibited using the work without the consent of the copyright holder.
See this right, this "exclusive right" is mine not yours for my work. I OWN it.
Since you are prohibited from using my work without MY CONSENT as the copyright holder, you may not use my work unless I choose and then only how I choose period.
So if I decide, not you, that you may use my software only on wednesdays while sitting on the toilet, that is my choice, your choice is either agree to my license or have absolutely NO RIGHTS to use my software at all as per "my" exclusive right to LICENSE my work under copyright LAW.
If you choose to ignore my license which is the only thing permitting you to have a copy of my work then you are infringing my copyright.
now go read and understand before posting again.
You can buy WOW for the MAC: store.apple.com
All this 'I can't play games on the MAC' talk sounds like FUD to me.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
If I extend my rights to you to use a copy of my code, I get to decide how you may use it.
/ ProductPage.aspx?pid=91
I write a license that says
"you only have a right to copy and use this software if you agree to these conditions otherwise you have no right to copy or use this software period"
is perfectly legal and binding on you if you choose to accept these terms otherwise you have no rights whatsoever.
in fact here is a perfect example of a license that specifies conditions.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
oh and here is another
http://www.microsoftvolumelicensing.com/userights
Both of these dictate to you what you may or may not do.
other than these licenses you have no rights to the material, software or music, unlucky.
Sounds suspiciously like a 'Mac penalty' cost that Microsoft is trying to justify.
No, it sounds suspiciously like a Mac zealot is under the impression that people only use virtualisation on Macs, and wrote up a misleading propaganda article about it that somehow got accepted.
Check this out about starkruzr from his posts here and prepare to laugh your asses off about him and his problems telling the truth, or what sex he is even, ahahahaha.
4 94155
t icleid=41095&cpage=190#feedbackAnchor
See, at this point, above all else, nobody can trust or believe in you starkruzr. You've been caught lying with your own words. Are you a girl, or boy? You are not sure yourself:
"Also, I never said I was from Staten Island. You did. I never said I was the girl in that picture either, you did." - by StarKruzr (74642) on Thursday March 29, @06:16PM (#18536049)
No one ever said you were a girl, YOU did, here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=227475&cid=18
"Okay, seriously. Let's drop the act. Okay? Yes? Let's quit pretending. I am quite male. I only said I was female to mess with your head." - by StarKruzr (74642) on Monday April 02, @08:18PM (#18581257)
starLOSER the arstechnica liar, caught no less in it a few times here with other reprehensible behavior, and the arstechnica member trend and typical pattern continues, lol, BUSTED as a liar.
(Very bad showing starkruzr. You have to live and post here, I do not. Your credibility as a human being alone with you being shown as a liar, has just gone out the window, and you tossed it there, nobody else - you're truly becoming just like your hero, Jeremy Reimer, lol, a dubious honor @ best!).
Either way, you can't win, and you know it. You are a liar, just like Jeremy Reimer, your fellow arstechnican and hero. Facts of your aberrant & antisocial behaviour noted below (some truly hum dingers, lol), work, just like they did on your fellow arstechnicans Jay Little and Jeremy Reimer at windowsitpro mag forums. It is a very good debate style, because it caught all of your arstechnica pals in lies like you have been caught here:
http://www.windowsitpro.com/articles/index.cfm?ar
Where is was shown that Jeremy Reimer is an email harasser who got caught, and tried to lie about it no less, as you have.
Jeremy Reimer also ended up having to move his osy website from his original hosting provider, on top of all else because of it, just as his friend Jay Little did. This must have really gotten to them, lol, because they tried it on apk first, and it instead, backfired on them, hahaha!
(Jay Little, and Jeremy Reimer (arstechnicans all, home of the liar and loser blowhard online, lol and now you here at slashdot another psycho-stalker from arstechnica trying to 'cut down apk' any way you can like some sick freak (evidenced below) since 2001 this has gone on from you people to he, and he has never started with you all, and there is no arguing with the results or facts is there on that account, starloser?))
The same arstechnicans in Jeremy "no degree or cert. in comp. sci. or years of pro experience hands-on doing the job" Reimer (your hero and friend), and his sidekick the 'exchange expert' Jay Little (not), who had their sites removed from their hosting providers and also got caught email harassing others as well no less? You are just helping to prove apk's point.
You arstechnica people have done this behind his back stuff cutting apk down or impersonating apk on your own site @ arstechnica and osy, and other sites so many times, you only give yourselves away each time.
(& like you, others from arstechnica also have all been caught outright lying as well in the doing of bullcrap like you are doing in particular now starloser. He must have really gotten to you all, lol, which is why you have a arsware section @ all on your home website no less).
Since 2001 (and apk has not bothered you all at your forums at arstechnica since no less) all the way to today in 2007, no less. Starkruzr, grow up.
I knew that when I said goodbye to you and you disappeared it must have been too good to be true. Just can't bear to let anyone have the last word, can you APK?
(Also, "I said X to mess with your head" does rather a piss-poor job of painting someone as a "liar," but I suppose that ship sailed several millenia ago.)
I think I hear your daddy calling, Alex. Better run back downstairs.
+++ATH0
Die in a fire, APK.
+++ATH0
That does not change the fact you lied about being a woman, by admitting you did lie starkruzr, you nimwit. A liar is a liar once you are branded as one and you did that to yourself. Keep wasting your time being a forums posting junkie instead of actually earning a degree in computer sciences which you probably are lying about as well though you state it here quite often from the url noted above. You certainly are now a known liar here at slashdot like your arstechnica friends reimer and little now are albeit on a larger scale at a very large and respected place in windows it pro magazine forums since they specialize solely in computers whereas this site does not solely. You are now the very worst type of person online and in real life in that because of your lies you now have zero credit rating here. I agree also you did that to yourself. You were badly beaten by this person apk whoever he is per the exchanges noted above because you talk a lot but have not done anything of worth in computers to compare with a large list of that persons works. You also seem to think that harassing others who are obviously more accomplished than yourself in this field by the proofs posted where they did well in publications in the computer science genre noted it where you have nothing to show at all yet attempt to smear others reputations with name calling and such. It was very amusing seeing the same people you put down catch you in your lies above all so I can say I thank you for the entertainment in that now you are nothing more than a court jester at best and liar at worst. Read my subject line and know this is what I and no doubt others reading here think of you and I am certain at this point I am not alone in that based on evidences your own words did you in. Evidences that you lied and now attempt to dismiss the fact you did saying you "were messing with their heads" doesnt make you appear better, it only makes you appear to be a weak liar trying to cover up his lies. You try to cut down others who have done well in computers and you have not even a candle to them in the way of noted legitimate accomplishments that respected publications in computers had written about them or wares they created being featured in them noted. Try to work harder instead of making yourself out to be nothing but a liar you child. Nobody respects liars.
Not a threat. Really. I think you should give dying in a fire a try.
+++ATH0
That does not change the fact you lied about being a woman, by admitting you did lie starkruzr, you nimwit. A liar is a liar once you are branded as one and you did that to yourself.
The sky is red. I AM A LIAR FOREVER OMG
What a dipshit you are. What does the inside of your own asshole smell like, APK? You are the only person I know who would know since you constantly have your head shoved up your ass.
Anyway. What kind of beer should I get for my birthday party on Friday? Just about every hot undergrad chick I know is coming, so, you know, I want to purchase to impress. The ladies do love their lambics, but the damn things are so bloody expensive. Thoughts?
Oh, and you appear to still be banninated from TPU. LOLZ.
+++ATH0
I know that as a narcissist you have no sense of humor, but please at least try to be funny, or I'll have to stop replying to what you say entirely.
+++ATH0
but you're still banned from everywhere you've ever posted. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Oh, and you're pushing 50 and still live with your dad.
+++ATH0
Big news today..
Linux is still free.
Ubuntu 7.04 was released yesterday!
I'm psyched. I think I might totally blow away XP on this machine and stick it on there. I wonder if it has Beryl enabled by default. Hmmm.
Oh, also, you're an idiot. No one thinks I'm a "liar" other than you.
+++ATH0
Starkruzr, I am not apk for the 100th time. Starkruzr nobody brought this on you but yourself. Starkruzr, you're just another arstechnica troller who bothers others yet can't stand being trolled and having your own medicine served up to you in return. Starkruzr apparently can dish it out but cannot take it and you certainly are not big on proofs when asked for them are you.
4 94155
t icleid=41095&cpage=190#feedbackAnchor
As to lying and nobody thinking you are, I think anyone that can read can verify this portion of your statement by checking these url's and quotes of yourself:
"Also, I never said I was from Staten Island. You did. I never said I was the girl in that picture either, you did." - by StarKruzr (74642) on Thursday March 29, @06:16PM (#18536049)
No one said you were a girl other than yourself here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=227475&cid=18
"Okay, seriously. Let's drop the act. Okay? Yes? Let's quit pretending. I am quite male. I only said I was female to mess with your head." - by StarKruzr (74642) on Monday April 02, @08:18PM (#18581257)
The very typical arstechnica trend continues. Just like your friend Jeremy Reimer your hero you too have been caught in the act lying as he did in the url below about being caught in the act email harassing others and had to move his osy forums website from his hosting provider along with his short fat friend Jay Little:
http://www.windowsitpro.com/articles/index.cfm?ar
Arstechnica: The * proud tradition * continues, and it doesn't take apk to show just how lame you liars are, it only takes catching any of you in the act, and that is very easy to do because you arstechnica forums board fools have a habit of lying outrageously! Go take your paranoia meds as had been suggested to you here several times by others now because I am not apk.
I do not have to even think you are a liar starkruizer because I know it now, and not just think it after my having read others' replies here to your post I am replying to now where you stated others do not think you are a liar. You are somewhat correct in that others dont think it, because instead (because of your own words cited) now they know it haha. You cannot be believed on anything you say at this point because you are a liar who was proven so by your own words which I verified above and you did indeed state you were a woman and continued it and then stopped saying you were not when you got caught lying about it. At this stage, I do not believe you are a doctoral candidate student in computer science by any stretch of the imagination either and that is because you have been exposed here at slashdot as a liar.
especially consistently. See also "APK."
You haven't managed to do anything at all to me yet, APK. What are you going to do? Send threatening letters to MY ISP?
I love how upset I can make you simply by not taking you as seriously as you take yourself. Truly, this is the ultimate in trolling.
BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!!!!! APK IS A GIANT LOSER WHO EATS TOO MANY POP TARTS AND LIVES WITH HIS DAD! LOLZ!
+++ATH0
All of those accusations of things, including that everyone is apk, but no proof of anything all the time. What's up with that starloser?
4 94155
t icleid=41095&cpage=190#feedbackAnchor
Proof you are a liar is easily available, and you provide it:
"Also, I never said I was from Staten Island. You did. I never said I was the girl in that picture either, you did." - by StarKruzr (74642) on Thursday March 29, @06:16PM (#18536049)
Nobody said you were a girl, YOU did, lol! Here is the posting where you did:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=227475&cid=18
"Okay, seriously. Let's drop the act. Okay? Yes? Let's quit pretending. I am quite male. I only said I was female to mess with your head." - by StarKruzr (74642) on Monday April 02, @08:18PM (#18581257)
I dont think you know what you are yourself @ this point, lol... I cant figure it out, but you act more like a chick does, lol!
(Just another arstechnica liar at work and like usual, nothing original here in starkruzr, as is the arstechnica tradtion - it's not their strong suit anyhow, in originality, just DERIVATIVE DRIVEL! The few, the proud, the plagiarizing lying literary Marines: Arstechnica! rotflmao...)
Starkruzr's just like his hero Jeremy "no degree in computer science, no certs like A+ (let alone MCSE), and no years of professional experience software engineering or network engineering hands on in computer science" Reimer caught in the act lying like starloser did and more.
http://www.windowsitpro.com/articles/index.cfm?ar
Where Reimer and Little both had their websites removed from their hosting providers for death threats, libellous activities directed toward their target (apk), and lies they were caught in while trying to cover them up, and the fact that Reimer wrote an article (plagiarized Englebart's work and passed it off as his) about something he has never done (a gui program on Windows or KDE/Gnome for Linux for example) is like reading about riding a bike from someone who never has.
starloser - pick better friends I would say, for your part here. They are not good examples, & do something good in this field, instead of just chat foruming away your time wasting it. Again, You're not big on proof of any of your statements when asked either and above all else, including that until you've "been there, done that" professionally in this field, then it's all b.s. that you stated when you cut down others in it as you often do, but you have not done anything of note in it yourself, where those you cut down have, and numerous times.
Especially if you're going to bother those that have & more, being featured numerous times in publications in this field, as you have towards apk & MySpace.com, yet when asked to show you had done better? You had ZERO/SQUAT?? That's only a BIG talker, but someone of no action/production of note, a bullshitter. You think anyone reading this respects you?? Do you think they like how you troll others and take glory of some perverse kind out of it, & think it's cool on your part???
Do you think others finding this about you don't think you're a sick, psycho-stalking freak of others and behind their backs online as you have apk online for 7 years now almost, and in the arstechnica tradition, take a self-induced beating each time, being caught lying and worse vs. apk???
ROTFLMAO! Believe what you will, but above all else?? You've been exposed as another arstechnica liar (not good @ it as per usual), talking big, no proofs when asked of them either... nobody believes you @ this point, & your own words brought it on you, quoted above.
You are.
Alex, I want you to take a moment to think, here. Just construct a thought experiment in your head.
You probably recall that a couple weeks ago I said "goodbye" and you stopped posting in response to me, yes? It could have been finished there, but you chose to resume your silly comments a week later.
Now, ask yourself this: Why would I or anybody else actually believe that a third party could be so profoundly invested in a random, stupid flamewar between two strangers on SLASHDOT of all places that they would actually start attacking ME over me trolling YOU? Why would some random person who "happened" to "stumble" across all these ridiculous conversations take so much of their own time to engage in your usual copy-and-paste rant sessions? Why would random individuals online care SO MUCH about what either you or I said to each other on Slashdot?
Answer: They wouldn't. That, combined with your inability to disguise your writing due to profound mental retardation, is why I know alllll of this has only been you shouting at me and me laughing at you.
You lose again, APK. Checkmate.
X GETS THE SQUARE!!!!!!111eleventyfive!!~
+++ATH0
You failed to address anything I said, because you know I'm right.
You lose AGAIN, APK. This must be getting enormously frustrating for you.
+++ATH0
OK, Alex, here we go:
... are you, like, a MySpace investor or something? They haven't changed one whit since 2002. The developers have been cruising on their existing codebase for 5 years. The social networking features don't work -- as anyone who looks at anyone else's profile and sees "so and so is in your 'Extended Network'" can attest to. The site is in desperate need of a redesign. For an example of social networking done CORRECTLY, see Facebook. Why do you care so much about one offhanded comment about MySpace?
"Okay, seriously. Let's drop the act. Okay? Yes? Let's quit pretending. I am quite male. I only said I was female to mess with your head." - by StarKruzr (74642) on Monday April 02, @08:18PM (#18581257)
We've been over this. Why does it matter again? Why do you keep coming back to this? Are you THAT freaked out by being unable to determine someone's gender online? Recall that YOU were the one who originally suggested I might be female, I just went along with it. You poor, poor insecure little boy stuck in a balding 47-year-old's body.
Are you proud of this, in your being caught as a liar with your own words and also turning up a TOTAL blowhard?
Yes. In fact, Mommy put this entire exchange on her refrigerator!
You also did this kind of critique with no merits and lies towards myspace.com as well, you outright disgusting liar.
Lol, you cry like a beyotch.
Lol, when did I lol cry like an lol beyotch lol?
you with no accomplishments in this field of good note or repute online period, lol
lol absence of evidence is not evidence of absence lol. Look up the definitions of "necessary condition" and "sufficient condition," then come back and try again.
You started this all up Yes? don't try to bullshit anyone reading here I'm not? The only people who have read any of this are you and me, APK, with the exception of whoever modded me down like... three weeks ago. You were also caught lying as well. About something that doesn't matter? Why do you care? How does me fucking around with you by saying I'm female have anything to do with... anything? Did you major in non sequiturs at LeMoyne or what?
Where apk was modded up +4, and you got a lol, -1 for trolling & flaming (which means nothing)
T,FTFY
Now. Let me educate you a little bit on why your "Registry Cleaning Engine" is what we in the computer science industry like to call "fucking worthless."
The Windows Registry, as I hope to God you know since you've written software that edits it, is organized in a tree data structure. Now, even assuming that Windows needed to search through the registry file every time it needed to look something up, the time complexity (i.e., the order of magnitude of how long it takes) of searching through a tree is approximately equal to log(n), where n is the number of entries in the tree. This is VERY, VERY FAST. Linear (n) scans of things are very fast already. log(n) is even faster. Your "Registry Cleaning Engine" removed 300-some-odd entries (on my test box, since I wouldn't put your software on a machine that mattered if my life depended on it) from a file that contains TENS OF THOUSANDS of items. This means that it reduced search time by log(300something). This is maybe a couple clock cycles. MAYBE.
Now, let's get out of the realm of the theoretical and get into real life. The Registry is NOT searched through every time Windows needs information from it. Instead, it is read from the file once, at boot, and loaded into memory into a static data structure which is a hybrid of a tree and an array. Windows keeps index pointers to important information and can do search through the tree for anything it doesn't have pointers to (naturally, the higher the branching factor at any level, the faster the search is). This means your "Engine" is even MORE worthless, because anything impor
+++ATH0
I don't expect anyone to listen to me at all. And no one is. No one is paying any attention to any of this other than you.
Fail, APK. Massive, massive fail.
+++ATH0
You're not fooling anybody, crackbaby.
+++ATH0
As usual, once Pinochio gets himself in a jam for missing points or doing a poor job of things, he is stuck with name calling. There it is, the signal that someone has another liar arstechnica forums member on the ropes and losing another debate, hahaha. Take those paranoia meds Pinochio.
starkruzr are you jewish?
Maybe it's because you're a massive antisemite?
+++ATH0
In case anybody is wondering why there is so much antisemitism worldwide? Look no further than the Jewish Talmud, and wonder no more. Especially about these parts quoted from it:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.men/browse_thre ad/thread/2385ab653d66252/6cc421202f854b7b
#1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim (Gentiles) is like killing a wild
animal."
#2. Aboda Sarah 37a: "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be
violated."
#3. Yebamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted
if she is three years of age."
#4. Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed."
#5. Yebamoth 98a: "All gentile children are animals."
#6. Schulchan Aruch, Johre Deah, 122: "A Jew is forbidden to drink from
a glass of wine which a Gentile has touched, because the touch has made
the wine unclean."
#7. Baba Necia 114, 6: "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of
the world are not human beings but beasts."
AND HERE ALSO:
http://www.sherryshriner.com/talmud_tidbits.htm
Tidbits From The Talmud
Erubin 21b. Whosoever disobeys the rabbis deserves death and will be punished by being boiled in hot excrement in hell.
Moed Kattan 17a . If a Jew is tempted to do evil he should go to a city where he is not known and do the evil there.
Non-Jews are Not Human Baba Mezia 114a-114b. Only Jews are human ("Only ye are designated men").
Also see Kerithoth 6b under the sub-head, "Oil of Anointing" and Berakoth 58a in which Gentile women are designated animals ("she-asses").
Jews are Divine, Sanhedrin 58b. If a heathen (Gentile) hits a Jew, the Gentile must be killed. Hitting a Jew is the same as hitting God.
O.K. to Cheat Non-Jews, Sanhedrin 57a . A Jew need not pay a Gentile ("Cuthean") the wages owed him for work.
Jews Have Superior Legal Status, Baba Kamma 37b. "If an ox of an Israelite gores an ox of a Canaanite there is no liability; but if an ox of a Canaanite gores an ox of an Israelite...the payment is to be in full."
Jews May Steal from Non-Jews, Baba Mezia 24a . If a Jew finds an object lost by a Gentile ("heathen") it does not have to be returned. (Affirmed also in Baba Kamma 113b).
Sanhedrin 76a . God will not spare a Jew who "marries his daughter to an old man or takes a wife for his infant son or returns a lost article to a Cuthean..."
Jews May Rob and Kill Non-Jews, Sanhedrin 57a . When a Jew murders a Gentile ("Cuthean"), there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a Gentile he may keep.
Baba Kamma 37b. Gentiles are outside the protection of the law and God has "exposed their money to Israel."
Jews May Lie to Non-Jews, Baba Kamma 113a. Jews may use lies ("subterfuges") to circumvent a Gentile.
Non-Jewish Children Sub-Human, Yebamoth 98a. All Gentile children are animals.
Abodah Zarah 36b . Gentile girls are in a state of niddah (filth) from birth.
Abodah Zarah 22a-22b . Gentiles prefer sex with cows.
Abodah Zarah 67b . "The vessels of Gentiles, do they not impart a worsened flavor to the food cooked in them?"
Insults Against Mary, Sanhedrin 106a . Says Jesus' mother was a whore: "She who was the descendant of princes and governors played the harlot with carpenters." Also in footnote #2 to Shabbath 104b it is stated that in the "uncensored" text of the Talmud it is written that Jesus mother, "Miriam the hairdresser," had sex with many men.
Gloats over Christ Dying Young, A passage from Sanhedrin 106 gloats over the early age at which Jesus died: "Hast thou heard how old Balaam (Jesus) was?--He replied: It is not actually stated but since it is written, Bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their days it follows that he was thirty-three or thirty-four years old."
Says Je
See subject line. Why wont you answer, starkruzr? (I think I know why, since you were caught red handed lying saying you were a woman, and then flipping the script only after you were caught in fact, being a male. You think anyone believes you are actually a student in computers at this point, after you're caught lying? Not I).
t icleid=41095&cpage=190#feedbackAnchor
Now, back on the subject.
After reading a list of quotations from the Jews' Talmud, it makes sense to myself that you do not answer and why anti-semitism exists so widely worldwide. Some shameful stuff is part of their belief system imo and yes many others. Especially that it is ok to murder non-jews or swindle them by lies and other reprehensible machinations, but mostly on the raping of children of non-jews being acceptable to jews.
Disgusting! You may not have been aware of it starloser, but you certainly are now.
The only question that remains, is if you yourself, are a jew. Answer it. This delay in reply is just making you look even more dumbfounded than usual!
(Mainly in your very weak review of apk's wares in this exchange, which only made you look more dull than usual, because you missed so many points that favor it, especially over its competition).
Time for more arstechnica namecalling is the prediction here, as you stated apk should die in a fire (something jews have a tendency to say imo due to hitler tossing them into furnaces (wrong, but look at their belief system and tell us all it is * right *)), that apk should die of AIDS, and more.
You called apk a red, and your buddies from arstechnica called him a "filthy russian" and the like as well here in the url below:
http://www.windowsitpro.com/articles/index.cfm?ar
Funny you arstechnicans should cry 'racism', but only air your side of it, and not apk's because when he does? The results are always the same as they were above, total loss vs. apk as is per the usual: Arstechnica and all their 'talent combined', taking a BIG dive to just 1 guy.
Hilarious.
(You say arstechnica is great, starloser? I don't see it there at the url above, nor here, with yourself (and doubtless the entire arstechnica 'collective' helping you on the technicals, and failing horribly per your 'weak' and rather erroneous review, as is the usual with yourselves, vs. apk)).
What a schlemiel this APK is! Truly a shandah for the goyim.
-----
Oh. My. God. I can't even tell you how hard I laughed after reading these two insane screeds of yours. Either one of two things is going on here:
1) You're kidding around and trolling, which would be funny all by itself because it REALLY seems like you're serious
2) YOU'RE ACTUALLY SERIOUS, which is possibly the most lol thing I can imagine
You have managed to singlehandedly wipe out any credibility you've ever had, alllll by yourself. And you have the nerve to call ME "paranoid" simply for calling you out on your little case of multiple personality disorder? As a philosopher from the late 40's might say (Daffy Duck, of course), "It is to laugh!" Wow. What are you going to do for your next trick, Alex? Start quoting the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?
Hey, if nothing else, Jews are hot. Come on, APK! Embrace your inner bagel nosh!
Sincerely,
StarKruzr McRubenstein
+++ATH0
Are you a jew, or not starkruzr? The question is simple to answer, so do so, YES or NO.
(Also, why are you saying it is insane to quote the words of the jews themselves regarding non-jews? It is only, after all, fact. Nothing hurts like the truth it seems, apparently).
And, if you are a jew OR NOT, what do you think of this on their part, quoted from their own beliefs out of the talmud??
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.men/browse_thre ad/thread/2385ab653d66252/6cc421202f854b7b
#1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim (Gentiles) is like killing a wild
animal."
#2. Aboda Sarah 37a: "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be
violated."
#3. Yebamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted
if she is three years of age."
#4. Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed."
#5. Yebamoth 98a: "All gentile children are animals."
#6. Schulchan Aruch, Johre Deah, 122: "A Jew is forbidden to drink from
a glass of wine which a Gentile has touched, because the touch has made
the wine unclean."
#7. Baba Necia 114, 6: "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of
the world are not human beings but beasts."
No evasions on your part starkruzr, so just answer if you are a jew or not!
(I am curious myself and I am not apk, though everyone here posting supposedly is according to yourself. Suggestion, do take those paranoid meds, ok?)
You called myself a "red" and this infers communist heritage, and your pals called apk a "filthy russian fucktard", per Jay Little here
http://www.windowsitpro.com/articles/index.cfm?art icleid=41095&cpage=190#feedbackAnchor
starkruzr it really appears that you are not one to talk, nor are your arstechnica friends on the subject of racism whatsoever. Still, I would like your thoughts on that list above, and below as well, straight from the jews' talmud.
(And no more lies from you please. Thanks. You already are in the credibility doghouse on that account, saying you were a woman, until you were caught as a male and only then you admitted to lying).
Fact is, your arstechnica pack like Jeremy Reimer and Jay Little seem to show there is a trend towards lies from arstechnica. Is this like the "jew thing to do"? It seems so, based on this list:
http://www.sherryshriner.com/talmud_tidbits.htm
O.K. to Cheat Non-Jews, Sanhedrin 57a. A Jew need not pay a Gentile ("Cuthean") the wages owed him for work.
Jews Have Superior Legal Status, Baba Kamma 37b. "If an ox of an Israelite gores an ox of a Canaanite there is no liability; but if an ox of a Canaanite gores an ox of an Israelite...the payment is to be in full."
Jews May Steal from Non-Jews, Baba Mezia 24a. If a Jew finds an object lost by a Gentile ("heathen") it does not have to be returned. (Affirmed also in Baba Kamma 113b).
Jews May Rob and Kill Non-Jews, Sanhedrin 57a. When a Jew murders a Gentile ("Cuthean"), there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a Gentile he may keep.
Baba Kamma 37b. Gentiles are outside the protection of the law and God has "exposed their money to Israel."
Jews May Lie to Non-Jews, Baba Kamma 113a. Jews may use lies ("subterfuges") to circumvent a Gentile.
ROTFLMAO! Man, no wonder jews haters abound worldwide. Look at the jews' own rules and views of others outside the jew faith. The baby raper part is unacceptably disgusting in and of itself above all others imho.
Jews are hot? Yea, when they get tossed into ovens, this is certain (humor). Your quote is invalid, since jews control the media largel
I've been busy, but ultimately I couldn't miss out on the potential for lulz.
... how does this have ANYTHING to do with system security? So much for your rebuttal, alleged person-with-an-IQ-greater-than-75.
Briefly, however:
Is this a savings/improvement, or not? Yes it is.
Do you know what the word "negligible" means? That is the kind of improvement your program produces. It is not at all noticeable by the user. There is no change in responsiveness or boot time. Everything is exactly as fast as it was before, for all intents and purposes.
Now - Can you gain anybody that much in a program you wrote that needed NO ALTERATION TO RUN ON Windows 9.x, Windows NT/2000/XP/Server 2003, all the way since the date of its birth back as far as 1997??
Uh, well. Sure. I could write something that looks for unnecessary system services and other things that don't strictly need to run (yes, I know there is no such thing as "services" on Win9x), and turns them off. That would actually be an order of magnitude better than your program. But, see, I know how to use Microsoft Management Console (and how to configure my Mac, and my Linux machine), so I don't need to do that. Because I'm not stupid. The way you are. See?
(In that it cleans up tracks of apps and installers that should not have been left behind and were after uninstalls or programs I used to use and still do, leaving entries of things they accessed that no longer exist on disk - another benefit it offers, albeit in security AND ONE BENEFIT YOU MISSED TOTALLY (so much for your analysis, alleged student)).
I'm kind of sad you didn't try anything else to justify the existence of your stupidly-designed, horribly-written application, because it would have been fun to shoot it down, too.
+++ATH0
"Jews are hot? Yea, when they get tossed into ovens, this is certain (humor)."
I think pointing this out is all I have to say about that.
Sincerely,
StarKruzr DeMalleystein
+++ATH0
Yes or no will do. Simple. Just answer the question.
An improvement, is an improvement. A gain, however small, is a gain. Nuff said on that account and thanks for seconding it along with its other users noted on its downloads page here
If I paint my car in Teflon to reduce its air resistance, but discover that the decrease in friction is some tiny fraction of a percent, it probably wasn't worth the effort of doing in the first place.
What does this mean?
It means that you are worthless.
you wont even answer if you are jewish or not, I wonder why that is.
Are you for real? This has nothing to do with anything. The fact that you even brought it up makes no sense whatsoever. I'm not going to answer your question because it's irrelevant and you are a tool.
You lose, APK. Again. But you're used to that, aren't you?
As you have committed the final step in your own self-degradation and abasement, I have nothing left to say to you, having successfully exposed you as human filth. Have a great life!
+++ATH0
"Now, let's get out of the realm of the theoretical and get into real life. The Registry is NOT searched through every time Windows needs information from it. Instead, it is read from the file once, at boot, and loaded into memory into a static data structure which is a hybrid of a tree and an array" - by StarKruzr (74642) on Monday April 23, @07:43PM (#18847517)
4 94155
This took the cake. I suggest you pull out your hero Dr. Russinovich's program (whom apk had to tell him how to fix his pagedefrag program, and where and how, due to his ROOKIE hardcoding usages of C:\ drive as the location of the pagefile.sys (this can be moved for better performance and apk originated that in fact since 1997 and his article at ntcompatible.com) in his program no less and he took apk's advice, and still has the same type of errs in hardcodes for the eventlog locations, which can also be moved for more performance), regmon and use it.
Then, see how much the registry gets accessed during windows operation for reads and writes by Windows itself AND other programs.
Now I know you don't have a degree in computer science and that you lie also about everything:
"I never said I was the girl in that picture either, you did." - by StarKruzr (74642) on Thursday March 29, @06:16PM (#18536049)
I never said you were a girl, YOU did, lol! Here is the posting where you did:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=227475&cid=18
"Okay, seriously. Let's drop the act. Okay? Yes? Let's quit pretending. I am quite male. I only said I was female to mess with your head." - by StarKruzr (74642) on Monday April 02, @08:18PM (#18581257)
Wow, what a TOTAL loser and liar you are starkruzr. Why wont you answer if you are a jew or not also? It is a simple yes or no answer, no big deal right, lol??
Fail.
+++ATH0
Fail^2.
You pathetic piece of antisemitic trash.
+++ATH0
"Now, let's get out of the realm of the theoretical and get into real life." - by StarKruzr (74642) on Monday April 23, @07:43PM (#18847517)
Lol, yea, lets get into real life and do a test. I decided to. Here is what I found, and it is not as you stated, but rather as you opponents did quoted below after your quote below.
Starkruzer, you said this:
"The Registry is NOT searched through every time Windows needs information from it. Instead, it is read from the file once, at boot, and loaded into memory into a static data structure which is a hybrid of a tree and an array" - by StarKruzr (74642) on Monday April 23, @07:43PM (#18847517)
Somebody mentioned here using regmon and also the new process monitor tool from Microsoft, so I did, and over a 1 minute period, the registry was read/written over 500,000 events/times while I was reading emails, unzipping some downloads, and opening up webpages and doing a post here for instance (light work only reading emails and webpages in the browser and email programs).
This showed me nearly constant registry access. Not as you said only 1 time at Windows startup.
At this point, I have to assume you are lying again, since you were shown to do that saying you are a woman, and then a man, and that you do not have this degree you state you have, nor are you a graduate student in computer science if you did not realize this.
This program, by removing unneeded or invalid registry entries, can save clocks cycles in that tiny timeframe then over the course of a day, a week, a month, a year, or a decade ad infinitum, it is saving people computing power.
A lot of it more than just potentially. Up to 360,000,000 reads in a day could work faster, and multiplying that over weeks, months, years, or decades adds up to helping performance if there are less entries to read thru.
If the entries found are in the set it cleans out, which is pretty much almost any section since all are scanned, it means less to read thru in those areas to get to the ones that are needed and still valid!
If there are 720 minutes in a day, and 1/2 million registry accesses a day? That is a big possible savings in their being less to read thru.
So, I agree with the person who said to test it and how they recommend doing it, and now quote them:
"This took the cake. I suggest you pull out your hero Dr. Russinovich's program (whom apk had to tell him how to fix his pagedefrag program, and where and how, due to his ROOKIE hardcoding usages of C:\ drive as the location of the pagefile.sys (this can be moved for better performance and apk originated that in fact since 1997 and his article at ntcompatible.com) in his program no less and he took apk's advice, and still has the same type of errs in hardcodes for the eventlog locations, which can also be moved for more performance), regmon and use it."
That all said, you really did do a poor job of trying to put down the program here:
http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/389/foowhatev ermakesgooglehappy.html
And it does have benefits in removing your tracks from things for security as well as helping remove remnants of no longer legitimate items on disk, above and beyond saving computational power that is wasted on them being in the registry for nothing that can use them other than for tracking/history purposes.
"Are you for real? This has nothing to do with anything. The fact that you even brought it up makes no sense whatsoever. I'm not going to answer your question because it's irrelevant and you are a tool." - by StarKruzr (74642) on Wednesday April 25, @03:05AM (#18867061)
I am asking now. I am curious if you are jewish or not. A yes, or no answer, will do.
I am not apk even though you think everyone asking here is and I suggest you get professional help for that obsession of yours regarding this apk guy.
You seem to think you know
Boring. Now that you've revealed yourself as a bigot you can't possibly top yourself.
NOW HEAR THIS, INTERNETS: APK HAS OFFICIALLY JUMPED THE SHARK.
+++ATH0
"Boring." - by StarKruzr (74642) on Wednesday April 25, @11:27PM (#18880177)
.ini files anymore for Windows logo std.'s I believe.
He may be boring, but you are now proven stupid, as well as being a liar (saying you were a woman and being caught as really being male, admitting to it once you were outright caught redhanded lying about it, lol).
On the registry, back on track and to business in the technical areas? Haha, man. You are dead wrong.
Starkruzr, you said this and are in massive error:
"The Registry is NOT searched through every time Windows needs information from it. Instead, it is read from the file once, at boot, and loaded into memory into a static data structure which is a hybrid of a tree and an array" - by StarKruzr (74642) on Monday April 23, @07:43PM (#18847517)
Hey, starloser you liar, and now proven very stupid shooting your mouth off and being dead wrong: Run Microsoft's Process Monitor, and see how wrong you are. Massively wrong.
You stupidly said it was only loaded and used once during Windows startup, and any fool knows this is not true.
The registry and its hives are also NOT a static entity either, but very dynamic as well, since it is written to as well as read from.
How stupid can a guy get? Starkruzr level apparently, an IQ 100 below protozoa, lol!
Programs and Windows read/write the registry constantly and the Configuration Manager controls flush to memory and disks for it (like a diskcache does almost), working alongside the filesystem (and eventually disk) drivers for said commission to disk, unless a coder explicitly writes to the registry immediately, and this IS possible.
Most programs today use the registry from the moment they are opened, during operations of them, and at their shutdown (saving Window position and size for example, and recently used file lists, and more in terms of configuration data and state saving). Very few use
In fact, to see how wrong you are, for yourself, starkruzr?
Well, try the test noted below using tools from Microsoft for this job and this type of test (registry access monitoring), and see just how stupid you are!
Thus, the smaller and more trimmed the registry is once less bloated by invalid entries, on disk or in RAM, the faster the valid entries in it are accessed and reaccessed, especially over time.
The only thing stupid myself and your other opponents are doing is dealing with you!
(You, the idiot that claims to have a degree in computer science but doesn't realize the registry is constantly accessed all during Windows operations from programs running on Windows and the Windows Operating System and drivers itself, in both RAM and on disk via the Configuration Manager kernel subsystem (or directly, this is possible in registry writes in instant commission to disk), rotflmao).
For your information and reference, I came upon this discussion as it was bookmarked on another technical forum with the posting title of "How dumb can anyone be about computers" and your posts here were put in as an example thereof in fact.
"Now that you've revealed yourself as a bigot you can't possibly top yourself." - by StarKruzr (74642) on Wednesday April 25, @11:27PM (#18880177)
Bigot? Hey, nobody wrote that stuff about the jews, but jews themselves, taken straight out of their talmud. Quoting information makes someone a bigot??
Now, calling others who are not jews "dumb beasts etc.", as it seems the jews believe is bad in and of itself, but their saying that baby raping of non gentile girls is ok?? I have a daughter, do you??? Do you want to hear or know they believe that is OK to do????
(That is sick to have as a valid belief to follow or believe in imo as well and strong grounds for dislike of them above all the others cited quotings by all means! They, like yourself, only brought troubles upon themselves it seems, believing their lunacy!)
According to what the jews themselves write in their talmud an
Starkruzr, you are so incorrect on how the registry works it is not funny, in this quote from you:
.log files (and later, deferred commission to the actual physical on disk HIVES files using dirty writes markers mechanisms, much like caching on disks and files works, by default. However, immediate registry commission is possible to disk as well).
"The Registry is NOT searched through every time Windows needs information from it. Instead, it is read from the file once, at boot, and loaded into memory into a static data structure which is a hybrid of a tree and an array" - by StarKruzr (74642) on Monday April 23, @07:43PM (#18847517)
The registry and its hives are more like a filesystem if anything first of all, which is basically an array of structures really since it contains more than a single datatype possible (11 diff. types iirc) and nodes (like a tree) in parent-child form, and also since it is essentially considered a database of sorts (and not purely a flatfile single file unit either because of its REG_LINK entries allowing cascading values across hives and values).
The is NOT static by any means and does not remain so. If you starkruzr, are exemplary of the state of our doctoral candidates in computing out of academia in the US, we are in trouble. No wonder Poland is #1 on that account, and we the US are behind that nation and iirc, Russia as well, per slashdot articles on that subject recently in competitions in that arena.
I mean, when you add new keys or values (programs do this, and especially installers) do you think the registry is static in nature, and unchanging? Do you think when you move a window to another location onscreen, or change its size, the values don't get resaved so a program retains state for the next run??
The registry, hives on disk (HKEY_USERS, HKEY_CURRENT_USER, HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT, HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE, and HKEY_CURRENT_CONFIG) and HKEY_DYN_DATA (performance counters oriented and purely in RAM) is not a static structure that only accessed once at boottime by Windows!
These hive files on disk and loaded into RAM into an array of structures is accessed on read/writes many times by Windows and subordinate programs via the configuration manager, and its writes to
As was suggested to you, try use the Microsoft program, Process Monitor or sysinternals regmon to show this to you, that the registry is constantly accessed and does get changed in memory and on disk as well via the config mgr. kernel subsystem.
This it is not even funny really that you would state the registry is static in nature, and especially since you are allegedly from your own words a graduate student and computer science doctoral candidate.
(Which unfortunately for you and your errors now, as well as your lying about being a woman, nobody will believe you about now since you were caught lying saying you were a woman and then only changed it when you were caught lying no less, about your being this alleged grad student and doctoral candidate you claim to be. You state apk is narcissistic, but he has been featured in publications over the last decade or more now in computer science at least 12-15 times. You have zero by comparison and when challenged on that account, you fell flat, as arstechnica forums members often do).
Man, if you are the example of the state of the US in terms of doctoral computer science students candidates, then the USA is indeed in trouble here, and doubtless this is why eastern europe trashes us in that area year in an year out as noted by slashdot recently in fact.
.log journalling files by default, and also the fact that immediate non-lazy written registry hive accesses are possible in code (see RegFlushKey)):
Once again you are proven stupid by your own words (along with your lies saying you were a woman and then caught as being male lol), because boot time is not the only time the registry is read or written you fool (see how the Microsoft Configuration Manager subsystem works using
"Sure. I could write something that looks for unnecessary system services and other things that don't strictly need to run" - by StarKruzr (74642) on Tuesday April 24, @06:57PM (#18863023)
Apk has been recommending that since 1997 or so online, and his article at ntcompatible.com originally (first ever online in fact on that account) evidences this. Its concept and his article itself is now elsewhere on many sites online has been doing that for a decade now. In fact, it has been cited by arstechnica forums members on their forums as well as many others worldwide over the past decade now, and is the oldest original article for Windows NT family of Operating Systems speedup tweaking and tuning for performance in fact on those grounds and many more for both security and speedup of said Operating Systems via the method of services trimming it extolls with many other tips for better performance from Windows NT based Operating Systems.
(Thus, as is the arstechnica plagiarizing usual, you'd only be copying his original work regarding that (as arstechnicans are wont to do like Jeremy "no degree or even certs in computer science, and no professional hands-on experience in network or software engineering" Reimer did as he plagiarized Englebart's work to do his "termpaper" on GUI history, lol, but never having written a gui program in his life no less. Thus, mere derivative drivel as usual from arstechnica)).
"Because I'm not stupid. The way you are. See?" - by StarKruzr (74642) on Tuesday April 24, @06:57PM (#18863023)
Well, apparently you are stupid. A little math computation is in order here to illustrate just HOW stupid you really are and that by no means are you a valid doctoral candidate in computer science:
There are, depending on how a user uses his system, 720 to 1440 minutes in a day (assuming people turn their machines off for half of a solar day even for the 1st number). Process Monitor showed me 1/2 million accesses of the registry in a minute. Thus there is between 360,000,000 and 720,000,000 accesses of the registry in a day.
If only 1% of that were saved by trimming invalid registry entries, then when apk's program even trims that only that much since registry access is constant then Apk's program removing invalid entries from the registry can indeed, save quite a bit of cpu processing time and many forms of I/O on disk and in memory I/O as well since making the registry smaller saves time in accessing its valid contents and has security benefits as well in cleaning up one's tracks in the registry as to file they used before but deleted from disk.
Top that off with the fact it has proven it does the job better than competition even from Microsoft in doing so as far as registry cleaners go, and is far safer in that it does not expose OLEServer/ActiveX control registrations as others do (which once those are removed erroneously, that can affect many programs that share them for marshalling and usage) proves in and of itself, he does good work lending to better performance and you even admit a gain is possible though you radically and on purpose underestimated it, or you just are not strong in math (which is fairly crucial in computer science).
Since its design has remained unaltered since its inception in 1997 and it works on Windows9x/NT/2000/XP/Server2003/Vista? That alone is a testament to a good design and algorithm employed and apparently a bug free interface design as well since you had no complaints about that also and lord knows you tried, and failed.
Fail again, APK.
+++ATH0
Starluzr, how did anyone who told you that you were in error, fail? Their findings only served to prove you wrong (with test evidence you can try yourself with tools from Microsoft and their own operating system setup). Answer this, do not evade it.
Also, starluzr, are you jewish or not?? A simple yes or no will do and evasions are YOUR constant failure!
You are being asked this, because of this view of non jews, which jews hold, and written by jews, about gentiles (non-jews):
#1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim (Gentiles) is like killing a wild
animal."
#2. Aboda Sarah 37a: "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be
violated."
#3. Yebamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted
if she is three years of age."
#4. Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed."
#5. Yebamoth 98a: "All gentile children are animals."
#6. Baba Necia 114, 6: "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of
the world are not human beings but beasts."
Disgusting and a source of true racism if ever there was one! Yet, the jews have the nerve to complain about antisemitism or racism directed their way???
you don't see the irony here. That's unsurprising. Narcissists are often incapable of distinguishing subtleties. I mean, hell, look at the president!
+++ATH0
A quote from starLOSER:
.log files at first and later committing them to disk (every 5 seconds or so iirc)!
.reg files as Juoni Vuorio used to use in his JV RegCleaner.
"I've been busy" - by StarKruzr (74642) on Tuesday April 24, @06:57PM (#18863023)
Where you starloser, stated that verbatim, from this url below:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=230833&cid=188 63023
Others are busy as well, and NOT busy 'trolling others' as you admittely do, and laughingly so, becaus you have literally nothing to establish you have any credibility in this field online that I could find at least no less.
(Thus your excuse you use above is valid for others also, and definitely moreso since most people are not foolish enough to troll their betters and like apk whom you admittedly solely target, because like apk, they create things people can use that are decent and work.)
Once more you lose starLOSER, and again by your own words (as usual for yourself, lol)!
Simply because I also, like others here, tested your statement under fire and in real conditions, not theory.
(By using Microsoft's Process Monitor as was suggested and as was stated approximately 500,000 registry accesses/events happened, per 1 minute alone. That in summation over a 24 hour period equates to 720,000,000 accesses of the registry per day on a system that's up 24x7).
So, if apk's program saves even 1% of that total 720,000,000 registry accesses amount in a day, it is going to save a lot of cpu cycle and memory + disk I/O because the registry is smaller because of programs like his and they will access pertinent data faster because of less to go thru in invalid useless entries.
Additionally, the registry is read/written by many programs including the OS itself all day long and is not a static structure by any means (what do installers and other programs do? Alter registry content, period)!
"The Registry is NOT searched through every time Windows needs information from it. Instead, it is read from the file once, at boot, and loaded into memory into a static data structure which is a hybrid of a tree and an array" - by StarKruzr (74642) on Monday April 23, @07:43PM (#18847517)
At this url:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=230833&thresho ld=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=18847517
The registry is NOT static in nature starloser. That was erroneously stated by yourself verbatim as the above quote where you stated it is only used once at Windows startup which is also not true.
That data is lazy written by default, back to mirroring registry hives on disk, by the configuration manager kernel component to
However, this is not always the case: Sometimes, depending on how code in a program is written, immediate writes to disk from RAM out of its directory like structure in memory to disk (see RegFlushKey) happens as well.
You completely omitted the fact it also is good for security, in that it cleans out files no longer on disk that you may not wished to be tracked by recently used filelists that Windows and programs on Windows often maintain.
However, it is most impressive in that apk's registry cleaner has been shown by tests by users themselves that it catches more invalid entries than any other like it from valid testing that used to pre-injected
Apk's also does so more safely than others, simply by not exposing OLE Server registrations as valid candidates for removal as invalid entries! This is a mistake that the other programs like his do expose! Thus, apk's competitors are exposing users to danger in terms of OS or program malfunction if OLE Server registrations are removed.
Apk's program is good, and it costs nothing at all (because it is c
RegFlushKey isn't supposed to be used like that. I'm not even a Win32 programmer and I know that. It's for flushing the write buffer cleanly before exiting a program, not for maintaining coherence between the state of the program and the registry.
+++ATH0
Congratulations on finding isolated verses which show that some Talmudic scholars were assholes.
I can find you verses in the Bible which affirm the goodness of slavery and the subjugation of women. Same for the Q'uran.
The only major world religion that isn't lightly sprinkled with evil is Buddhism, and I'm not even TOTALLY sure about that.
Fail again, APK. Please don't slit your wrists, I'd hate to have your blood on my conscience.
+++ATH0