Windows XP PCs Breed Rootkit Infections

really? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 03:47 · Score: 0

xp sp3 cracks easily with tools made for sp2. i use windows update and everything. upgrade, people!

Re:really? by couchslug · 2011-07-31 04:39 · Score: 2

Most people can't afford to upgrade or don't know how, and are running PCs so old buying a new OS isn't worth it and buying more RAM adds to the expense.
Light Linux distros (can) work fine on older hardware but only geeks can learn more than one OS without their heads exploding. Ya gotta wanna.
Puppy Linux is popular with curious noobs (I use the term in the most friendly way!), but what is most needed is a simple distro designed to play Flash games, surf da intarweb, and watch Youtube. I could load that on my friends "kid PCs" and save having to Ghost them so often.

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Re:really? by improfane · 2011-07-31 05:32 · Score: 1

The friendly way to call someone a newcomer is newbie, not noob.

--
Slashdot needs Geekcode | Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld,
Re:really? by toadlife · 2011-07-31 05:35 · Score: 2

but what is most needed is a simple distro designed to play Flash games, surf da intarweb, and watch Youtube. I could load that on my friends "kid PCs" and save having to Ghost them so often.
What you're describing is called "Ubuntu" and it's been around for awhile now.
My son's netbook came with Vista "starter" edition and after the built-in system restore function hosed the system (this is what you get when you try to save 10 bucks by buying a laptop from a fourth-rate Chinese manufacturer) my only realistic choice was to load Linux on it. He is perfectly happy with it now, as all he did was play flash games on it and Flash (finally) works just as well on Linux as it does on Windows.
The problem with Linux comes it on when you want to do anything beyond browse the net and look at youtube videos.

--
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
Re:really? by realityimpaired · 2011-07-31 05:58 · Score: 2

http://bodhilinux.com/
Minimalist. Can be full-featured, that stuff is available, but at its core, it gives you a desktop, an internet connection, and a browser. You will need to add Flash, because it's non-free, but it may be what you're looking for. :)
Re:really? by couchslug · 2011-07-31 07:11 · Score: 1

Ubuntu in recent incarnations is slow on machines without a lot of memory.

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Re:really? by couchslug · 2011-07-31 07:18 · Score: 1

Thanks! Looks interesting so I'll install in a VM then play with the memory and graphics settings to see how low it can go.
Plenty of seeders at the moment.

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Re:really? by realityimpaired · 2011-07-31 07:28 · Score: 1

It'll run at less than 64mb of RAM if you have a super-basic e17 environment going. :) On my current laptop, it's using 250mb or so, but that is with the e17 equivalent of compiz/fusion and a whole bunch of other programs open too. (chiefly firefox and pidgin, but also a few others that I need to play friendly with the network at work)
Re:really? by Soluzar · 2011-07-31 07:54 · Score: 1

Changing times, changing terms. The term 'newbie' is passing out of usage, even though it has a distinct definition from 'noob' in theory. I've noticed that the latter is not quite such a loaded term as it once was. I'm not surprised that someone can use it with a friendly intent. Can't expect net slang to remain static, when the population using it has changed so much in the last ten/fifteen years.
Re:really? by kelemvor4 · 2011-07-31 07:56 · Score: 1

LindowsOS used to be the answer. That is, until Micheal Robertson sold out.
Re:really? by Hylandr · 2011-07-31 08:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

I wasn't sure if this should be modded flamebait, since there doesn't seem to be an 'astroturf' rating. *Any* version of windows should not be on the internet without a separate firewall solution deployed. Period.
This just feels too much like a marketing FUD to make people buy more Microsft licenses.
- Dan.

--
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Re:really? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 12:39 · Score: 0

*Any* version of windows should not be on the internet without a separate firewall solution
Nonsense.

This just feels too much like a marketing FUD...
You are one to talk.
Re:really? by ozmanjusri · 2011-07-31 15:16 · Score: 1

Evidence?
Recent incarnations of X/K/Lubuntu seem quite responsive, even running from USB stick on my Kogan Agora netbook.

--
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Re:really? by Runaway1956 · 2011-07-31 16:59 · Score: 1

I have heard that, and read it. I don't really see the evidence. But - I'll grant that the most popular desktop environments are memory hogs. For that reason, I wish Ubuntu had worked a bit more with the Enlightenment crowd. Fast, responsive, small memory footprint - and prettier than anything else I've ever played with.

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Re:really? by Runaway1956 · 2011-07-31 17:08 · Score: 1

I've looked at Bodhi in the past. Looks nice - but I demand 64 bit operating systems on my 64 bit hardware. For that reason, I've only looked at Bodhi. A similar offering, in 64 bit, is available from Sabayon: http://forum.sabayon.org/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=24632
Notice that Sabayon is available with or without any of the major desktop environments. If Bodhi appeals to you, then you'll want that E17 image. Sabayon IS somewhat different than the "average" Linux, in that it is based on Gentoo - but it's not so different that you're likely to be lost.
I'm actually running that distro on metal right now, after a disk failure borked my 3 year old Ubuntu installation.

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Re:really? by Runaway1956 · 2011-07-31 17:13 · Score: 2

I agree - and I disagree.
The agreement is, Microsoft shouldn't have ever come to rule the computing world - or any segment of the computing world.
Reality, however, is what it is. We have an entire generation who grew up on free computers in schools, being taught by people who were basically Microsoft indoctrination agents. People know and demand Microsoft. So - since that is where we are at, we have to cooperate. It's time for all those MS-centric people who are still on XP to upgrade. If they insist that they must make monetary offerings to Microsoft in order to use a computer, then it's time to make a new offering.
Of course, I'll still be trying to show people that Microsoft is a false idol, and trying to get them to upgrade to a Unix-like operating system. Sometimes, I actually succeed!

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Re:really? by phtpht · 2011-07-31 18:03 · Score: 0

Somehow this has slipped into a linux distro debate. You guys assume that linux is somehow superior in security against botnets, but I don't see why would that be so. Linux browsers, flash, and other apps, are as crappy as on windows, and there is really no obstacle in making a botnet/spyware/... run on linux. In fact it's going to be a lot easier because all distros have things like perl or python. The only thing that protects linux from this is its tiny market share, but see android ... linux based, thus uber secure, right, right?
Re:really? by Mathinker · 2011-07-31 19:49 · Score: 1

> The only thing that protects linux from this is its tiny market share
Nope. Most distros also patch kernel vulnerabilities somewhat faster than Microsoft, because they think it's more important to push out the patches than to risk pissing off their users, since their users are currently (mainly) not paying.
Most Windows botnets are kernel botnets. In XP, moving from a user-space botnet to a kernel-level one was trivial for most user installations.
Your point that Linux is still quite vulnerable to user-space botnets is correct, but if/when the time comes it will be possible to try to catch such botnets from the kernel level. My guess is that people using Linux will "roll-over" their user installations periodically, just like people used to reinstall Windows periodically. Some of these "roll-overs" will work for getting rid of infections, and others will be circumvented by the botnets.
Another advantage of Linux over Windows is that it is possible to legally run it in a VM without having to pay for a second license. Easy VM usage will help against (but not eliminate) the threat of malware/botnets.
Of course, by that time, I'll probably be running Haiku, Syllable, Hurd, or Plan 9, myself. Hope to see the day!
Re:really? by Runaway1956 · 2011-07-31 19:53 · Score: 1

First - android is a modified Linux. Highly modified, in fact, by the vendors. Each device marketed by a vendor has the exact same security flaws. Crack one, you've cracked them all. This is contrary to the more general Linux distros, wherein the user decides what apps, what kernel, what development tools, even which desktop environment. In short - android is largely a monoculture, like Windows. Monocultures are dangerous, in that each individual device is susceptible to all the same exploits that all it's brethren are.
Second - perl, python, or whatever is installed by default on this or that Linux distro - but not all of them. Again, it depends on the user who sets up the distro. Even if python is installed by default on my distro - I can remove it easily enough. Unlike Android apps.
And, that market share argument? I'm not impressed. The fact is, Linux servers and Linux workstations simply aren't infected like Windows is. You can make that argument all you like, it doesn't become any more true with infinite repititions. The WORST thing I've ever seen on a Linux desktop, was a browser hijacking. I guess if I were susceptible to phishing, I would have seen much worse by now - but therein lies part of Linux' security. The braindead can't be bothered to run an OS that they might have to learn! It's so much easier to insert the Windows CD, accept all the defaults, then fire up "the browser" that was installed by default, and navigate to music, porn, movies, P2P, and all the other mindless drivel that appeals to the braindead.
You can have market share, because you get to count every braindead user in the world in your corner, LMAO

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Re:really? by phtpht · 2011-08-01 07:47 · Score: 1

You have a far better point than the other reply to my comment, but nevertheless...
Kernel or other patches are a reactive measure, not proactive such as micro kernel, sandboxing, mandatory access controls, and shifting drivers to userspace (of which linux has the least).
One of the pillars of good security, i.e. ex-post detection of malicious behavior, is completely missing from linux installations, and seemingly from the mentality of the linux community, whereas on windows it is the norm to have an "anti virus" software, which can be pretty efficient in detecting userspace threats and sometimes even stands some chance against kernelspace intrusions.
The point of being able to run a VM legally in linux is valid, but no wide-spread practical application of that is currently available. In fact there's a lot of fine security solutions for linux (unfortunatelly sans the kernel itself) but they all are brutally under-utilized. From that perspective linux desktop is only at the very beginning of the road towards security. I stand with my previous assessment that the lack of linux based malware is from its greater part caused by minimal interest on the part of the criminals.
And yes, when linux becomes so popular that it will attract malware enough, the plan to move to another less known OS is pretty good ;-)
Re:really? by phtpht · 2011-08-01 07:56 · Score: 1

Your monoculture argument is wrong. From the dawn of times, linux exploits come tailored for the most common distrubutions and some are even intelligent enough to determine the environment at run time. Some can even adjust for non-standard parts replaced by the user. And they have a very good success rate indeed. The number of possible combinations for a typical linux server or workstation is not by a long shot high enough to pose any problem due to environment diversity.
Re:really? by Runaway1956 · 2011-08-01 08:25 · Score: 1

Well, sir, that is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. But, Google offers a lot of opinions that seem to support my own.
http://dan.tobias.name/thenet/monoculture.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoculture_(computer_science)
http://www.cs.cornell.edu/fbs/publications/IEEEspMonoculture.pdf
Some opinions see monoculture as a very serious problem, others see it as a less serious problem - but all see monocultures as a problem to some degree.
And, if Linux exploits are so good, why is no one using them to create botnets, or to harvest data? Oh yeah - market share. I haven't bought into that argument in the past, and I'm not buying it now.

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Re:really? by Kremmy · 2011-08-01 10:46 · Score: 1

Y'know, there was a time when Enlightment was considered excessive eyecandy with a heavy footprint. It's not all that different now than it was then, but we sure have some perspective now, eh?
Re:really? by Kremmy · 2011-08-01 10:59 · Score: 1

Linux actually is popular enough, and it is actively targeted. As an end-user, you can be forgiven for your assumption that it's not, from your side of things it looks like a pretty thoroughly Windows world. But from the other side of things, the side where your information is being pumped through this global sewage system we call the internet, Linux is more popular than you may be able to comprehend. The raw number of Linux servers out there, did you see that estimate that Google is running about 900,000 servers? I find it highly unlikely that they've got anywhere near a million Windows servers kicking it over there. Hacking Linux opens up the information of the entire world, your music and porn just isn't that interesting.
Re:really? by phtpht · 2011-08-02 05:29 · Score: 1

I don't see what you were trying to say about servers. Obviously, the user factor will vanish on a headless machine, but OTOH servers get usually reaped via buggy webapps. The OS role in this is relatively minor.
Re:really? by phtpht · 2011-08-02 05:35 · Score: 1

I know what monoculture in security context is. Let me restate my opinion: presenting 10 or so choices of popular distro's is not going to render a significant difference from only 1 choice.
As for botnets or harvesting data: they are doing it. Run a honeypot and you'll get yourself an IRC based botnet in 2-3 days average. Faster than snail mail!
Re:really? by Kremmy · 2011-08-02 06:10 · Score: 1

I don't consider the OS role in this minor at all given that the widespread worms such as Sasser and Blaster on Windows replicated through vulnerabilities in the base operating system services. To say that the OS is so inconsequential makes the entire idea of "once Linux gets popular enough to attract malware" have no meaning whatsoever. This discussion has reached a point of incoherence, lad.
Re:really? by Kremmy · 2011-08-02 07:21 · Score: 1

Apparently I replied to my own comment by mistake, this new discussion system jumps around too damn much.

I don't consider the OS role in this minor at all given that the widespread worms such as Sasser and Blaster on Windows replicated through vulnerabilities in the base operating system services. To say that the OS is so inconsequential makes the entire idea of "once Linux gets popular enough to attract malware" have no meaning whatsoever. This discussion has reached a point of incoherence, lad.

water still wet by smash · 2011-07-31 03:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

Is this really a surprise?

--
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.

Re:water still wet by Lennie · 2011-07-31 03:55 · Score: 5, Interesting

I've actually seem stories with other numbers as well, where most of the new malware for windows is coming out for Windows 7; Windows XP already has enough malware and people don't seem to be writing any new ones. The old ones already work fine I guess.

--
New things are always on the horizon
Re:water still wet by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 04:23 · Score: 0

Is this really a surprise?
I see no where mentioned that claims it IS a surprise.
In fact, none of the summaries on the Slashdot front page have that word in them at the moment, yet HALF of them have a post claiming it was said, denouncing it should be, and getting modded up.
To answer your question: I am sorry you feel it should be surprising, and then question yourself about it. But to the rest of us, no, it is not.
Re:water still wet by hairyfeet · 2011-07-31 05:14 · Score: 5, Informative

The difference is if UAC is active and you are using a Chromium based or IE so that you have low rights mode (WTF Firefox? it has been FOUR YEARS already, get on the ball!) it is actually pretty damned hard to infect Windows 7 without getting the user actively involved. Of course getting the average user to help you install malware is trivially easy, even after all these years of MSFT trying to warn people not just to run any old thing they find on the net. But as someone who fixes machines 6 days a week I can tell you that the infection rate once I got most of my customers to switch to 7 went waaaay down. And Windows 7 doesn't really take much more than XP I have several family members on late model P4s with 1Gb of RAM that Win 7 is running just fine on. They don't have Aero but who cares.
But I have to agree about TFA and pirated Windows. Ballmer, in yet another proof of his incompetence killed the $50 Windows 7 HP upgrade which frankly was the best weapon against piracy I'd ever seen. Guys that had been running pirated Windows for years went legit thanks to that affordable upgrade path. But now that it is gone I'm seeing "Xp Pro Corp SP3 Razr1911 Edition" machines again alongside the pirated Windows 7 machines on Craigslist. you can always spot the pirated versions BTW, as they ALWAYS use the most expensive SKU. When you have a PC that isn't worth $120 running a $200+ copy of Windows Ultimate? yeah its pirated.
The thing is while the pirates know about Autopatcher and WSUS Offline the folks they are selling these machines to don't and since they won't pass WGA (the Windows 7 hack lasted for awhile but I'm now seeing folks that bought PCs with Win 7 off of CL coming in with WGA warnings) most are simply disabling Windows Updates. Folks don't know nor realize it is off and just think their PC is slowing down because "it is getting older" instead of the truth, it is has more viruses than a Bangkok Whore.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:water still wet by LordLimecat · 2011-07-31 12:37 · Score: 3, Informative

The difference is if UAC is active and you are using a Chromium based or IE so that you have low rights mode (WTF Firefox? it has been FOUR YEARS already, get on the ball!) it is actually pretty damned hard to infect Windows 7 without getting the user actively involved.

Thats not entirely accurate. UAC is generally avoided by detecting whether the user has admin rights, and if so, rooting the machine; if not, installing a virus that launches on user login, stored to %appdata%. This can perform the role of "User-mode rootkit" (if you dont believe such a thing exists, google "n00bkit"), effectively locking down such things as task manager, registry editor, etc, at least for the current user (I dont believe UAC is tripped when writing to HKCU registry hive)-- and on MOST home machines, there is only one user, and users are not aware of how to remove such infections in such a scenario.
As for Chrome and IE, IE has some protection from its sandbox mode, but you still have to deal with the fact that MOST infections seem to stem from out of date plugins-- Java, Quicktime, Reader, Flash-- which effectively load external DLLs outside of the controls and protections of the browser. If you have a Java vulnerability which allows arbitrary code and privelege escalation, it matters not whether you use IE or Chrome or XP or seven (except insofar as ASLR, DEP, etc mitigate the flaw).
Chrome DOES have the benefit that it automatically updates its PDF and SWF plugins, which mitigates that attack vector by quite a bit; but a 0-day flash exploit will infect you just as easily regardless of browser.
UAC DOES, of course, make it about a zillion times easier to remove the virus, as a non-escalated virus install cannot infect the MBR, patch the kernel or system drivers, etc, and is easily removed by launching a startup editor with elevated permissions.
Re:water still wet by hairyfeet · 2011-07-31 13:49 · Score: 1

And there is a simple way to mitigate that, it is called defense in depth. So far I haven't had a single Win 7 PC I did defense in depth on get infected. Here is what I do..I install Avast Free (which gives sandboxing and scans pages BEFORE load) along with Malware bytes and finally I add support for Structured Exception Handling Overwrite Protection and so far not a single bug.
I also do NOT install Java as I've found the vast majority have no use for Java, I use Sumatra PDF instead of Adobe (Sumatra is a simple PDF reader without support for a lot of the "features" that Adobe gets pwned for) and finally if they get a page saying "You need the latest flash" I have a bookmark already made for them on the bookmarks toolbar of Comodo Dragon (Chromium based that uses its own secure DNS that is separate from the OSes DNS, which helps block exploit pages) to take them to Ninite which is like a repo for Windows third party software and always has the latest and greatest. i tell them if after updating from Ninite the site still says it wants to install Flash it is malware and avoid it.
These additions take maybe another 20 minutes on a new build but is WELL worth it IMHO. I have some customers that on XP would get more viruses than a Bangkok Whore no matter what I did, but now with Windows 7 they are clean as a whistle, just to make sure I have scanned with several boot CDs with the latest defs and nothing, clean machines.
I just hope MSFT doesn't cock this up with Windows 8. Windows 7 is solid, easy to use, and easy to lock down. i'm just glad Win 7 is supported until 2020 so that I can avoid Win 8 if it turns out to be another Vista!

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:water still wet by ozmanjusri · 2011-07-31 15:21 · Score: 2

And there is a simple way to mitigate that, it is called defense in depth. So far I haven't had a single Win 7 PC I did defense in depth on get infected.
Simple?
After reading that, I am SO glad I don't use Windows myself, and a great deal more sympathetic to all those relatives and friends who come for help with their hosed computers.

--
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Re:water still wet by smash · 2011-07-31 17:34 · Score: 1

Since when is installing alterntiaves to known insecure software and following security best practice by not running everything as administrator not simple?

--
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Re:water still wet by tlhIngan · 2011-07-31 17:59 · Score: 1

Of course getting the average user to help you install malware is trivially easy, even after all these years of MSFT trying to warn people not just to run any old thing they find on the net.
It's called the dancing pigs problem, and is probably the biggest problem with any security systems. Warning the user isn't enough - the user will do anything that gets in the way of what they want to do.
That includes opening their PC to security holes.
Re:water still wet by hairyfeet · 2011-07-31 18:47 · Score: 1

Dude all of the above except for Comodo Dragon and the MSFT patch is on Ninite, where all you have to do is check the fucking box and if check the fucking box is REALLY so damned hard for you? Then I would suggest you shouldn't even be on a PC. How about a nice ARM tablet where you never get any updates? probably be much safer for you.
Ninite has Flash, Messenger, Klite DXVA codecs, Avast free, it is all as simple as 'check the box". You have a single reboot for Avast free, big fricking whoop. If anything I'd argue that compared to WinXP and the brain dead "Hey lets design everything to run as admin!" bullshit win 7 is a breeze and a joy to work with. Thanks to Win 7 having the drivers integrated into WU I spend more time setting up users for my customers than I do installing or tweaking the OS.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:water still wet by LordLimecat · 2011-08-01 01:20 · Score: 1

If you think the attack I described for Windows is not technically and trivially possible to implement on Linux or Mac, you are sadly mistaken. Possibly if you have apparmor or something it would mitigate java flaws to some extent (assuming you have it properly configured)-- but getting that set up starts to sound as complicated as parent's windows protection plan.
If your computer can load arbitrary code as an unpriveleged user, it can be infected as an unpriveleged user. If your computer can load JAR, SWF, PDF, and MOV files, theres a good chance it shares its vulnerabilities with 99% of the rest of the computer world (evince, gnash etc not withstanding).
Re:water still wet by LordLimecat · 2011-08-01 01:25 · Score: 1

Windows 7's security capabilities are generally considered superior to that of a bog-standard Linux and a bog-standard Mac install. Break out SELinux, Apparmor and the rest and the score starts to get even, but Windows can be hardened to a remarkable extent (require signatures on all binaries, mark all user-writeable locations as non-executable, ASLR, kernel patch protections, automatic replacement of corrupted / infected system binaries, etc).
Re:water still wet by hairyfeet · 2011-08-01 07:06 · Score: 1

Next time someone tells you "Linux can't get bugs!" you just point them to this page which gives you how to write a Linux virus in 5 easy steps using plain old fashioned social engineering, the same stuff that I can confirm from my years of working repair is how the vast majority of Windows PCs get pwned.
It is actually extremely simple and logical if fanbois would only take a minute to think, instead of waving their Tux flags or iFlags or WinFlags...ALL OSes are extremely complex layers of code where even Torvalds himself can't tell you with 100% certainty what happens step by step when you launch a user mode application and then on top of all this complexity you add third party code and finally add the weakest link, the user him/herself and what do you get? Why a pwned machine of course!
All you can do is use defense in depth, use best security practices, and have frequent backups so that if the user bypasses all your defense so they can have the "LOL Kitteh!" screensaver with a trojan onboard you're ready to clean it up. I'd argue OOTB Win 7 is more secure than Linux or OSX, simply because MSFT learned from previous mistakes and now you have UAC ASLR, DEP, etc, etc. As you said SELinux or AppArmor would give the same protection but quickly becomes a royal PITA and you'll likely run into programs hanging like you do when trying to run XP as non admin.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:water still wet by LinuxIsGarbage · 2011-08-01 09:24 · Score: 1

I agree with most of your comments, and personally bought legit discount $40 Windows 7 upgrades from a student discount.
As far as running pirated editions, yeah, Razr1911 Edition types are pure garbage, and a couple of activation hacks are detected by WGA/WAT, but the truth is it's still incredibly easy to install a legitimate edition, run minimal modifications to make it activated, and always pass WGA/WAT checks. With XP it's simple enough to enter an OEM Master (SLP) key, and bypass activation check (patch that tricks that part of windows into thinking it's in safe mode). Windows 7 there's loaders that make Windows think it's booting on genuine HP or whatever hardware, and activating. These versions haven't been flagged by Microsoft for years. Yet somehow so many people end up with versions packed with garbage, or versions using obsolete methods

Re:good by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 03:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

Unfortunately the effect is that it impacts others, these are the machines which get used as zombies for spamming, ddos attacks etc.

people need to upgrade by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 03:59 · Score: 5, Funny

so rootkit authors can focus on Windows 7

Re:people need to upgrade by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 06:44 · Score: 0

The rootkit authors are focusing on Windows 7. Note that Windows XP rootkits were detected, while Windows 7 rootkits were undetected.

BS! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 04:00 · Score: 0

What BS! I am still running SP2 (in a Linux VM) because SP3 is a POK.... and it breaks too many of my necessary applications!

Re:BS! by asdf7890 · 2011-07-31 04:55 · Score: 1

Which applications does it break?

I've not come across anything since shortly after SP3 came out that has had any trouble at all (I still run XP as my main home desktop, and in VMs at work). Even our more conservative clients that won't yet move away from IE6 are running SP3, so presumably they have no problems even with some of the ancient software they run that they don't want to update/replace for one reason or another.

pirates can get security updates by lseltzer · 2011-07-31 04:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

Just so it's clear to everyone, you don't need a "genuine" version of Windows to download and install critical updates. And honestly, SP3 is over 3 years old. It's hard to hold Microsoft or even Windows XP accountable for users refusing to upgrade.

Re:pirates can get security updates by CastrTroy · 2011-07-31 04:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

Well to be fair, if you install windows XP from a recovery image or from an original CD you have from the original version, your computer could probably be pwned before you even have the time to download the service packs.

--

Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Re:pirates can get security updates by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 04:08 · Score: 0

Get a 25$ NAT-router and don't watch porn while you install the updates.
Re:pirates can get security updates by countertrolling · 2011-07-31 04:09 · Score: 1

Yeah, since you're so adamant, why don't you cough up the 200 dollars or whatever it takes for me to upgrade? You know, maybe I don't feel like running on that treadmill. My old system runs perfectly fine.

--
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Re:pirates can get security updates by lseltzer · 2011-07-31 04:09 · Score: 1

Or download the standalone SP3 image first. That said, Microsoft should do more rollup updates.
Re:pirates can get security updates by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 04:19 · Score: 0

I had this problem happen to me. To install the ATT DLS I needed to boot to Windows to run their software. It also couldn't be run through a NAT during initial installation. Since I didn't use Windows much it was way out of date of updates. There was no way around temporarily running an insecure setup.
It didn't take long to get a worm. The only time I have ever had malware on my system (that I know about) all thanks to the DSL account setup program. I learned later that I could have called customer support and had them setup the account for me without that software.
ATT was smart with their Uverse service; NAT by default.
Re:pirates can get security updates by __aazsst3756 · 2011-07-31 04:29 · Score: 1

Microsoft makes it hard for genuine users.
Pirates download the latest update very easily.
If your one of the millions of legitimate users out there that just want to replace a failed hard drive in an old pc, or grab one of the millions of off lease pc's on the market that usually come sans hard drive, you will likely use an old install CD. This makes it a real pain to get all the service packs installed.
MS really should have the latest fully patched XP ISO downloadable right from their web site. It is not like they don't already have an authentication service already in place.
Re:pirates can get security updates by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 04:29 · Score: 0

That's why you disconnect the computer from the Internet before downloading the updates.
Oh, wait...
Re:pirates can get security updates by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 04:37 · Score: 0

Only if you are not behind a hardware firewall. That is one of the points I make to my clients why they need a hardware firewall. Many newer machines have factory restoration software that clients use from time to time and I remind them that software is usually years behind current updates. Since many clients refuse to spend the money on hw firewall, I usually take longer giving back their PCs for I must update the PC fully before they take back home to surf the Net. Even when they are not infected, I must update the PCs while I can.
Re:pirates can get security updates by realityimpaired · 2011-07-31 04:38 · Score: 1

My old system runs perfectly fine.
That doesn't mean that you're not an idiot for not installing the free updates/upgrades that Microsoft provides for security reasons. That was the GP's point, you realize? He's not suggesting people go out and buy a copy of Windows 7 because they're using Windows XP, he's suggesting that they log in to Windows update and install the critical service updates and service packs.
MS prevents pirates from getting new features. They don't prevent pirates from getting security updates. That's because MS, as evil overlordy as they are (and Apple is *way* worse IMO) is smart enough to realize that it's good for *everybody* if you are running an up-to-date system with current security patches.
Re:pirates can get security updates by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 04:40 · Score: 1

Most normal pirate-user had the “your copy may not be genuine” on the past, so now days it’s normal to just turn off the windows update to be safe.
Re:pirates can get security updates by Redneck_Moron · 2011-07-31 04:41 · Score: 1

"Yeah, since you're so adamant, why don't you cough up the 200 dollars or whatever it takes for me to upgrade? My old system runs perfectly fine." These are the same people who don't understand that Smog laws are there for the greater good of everyone. "I'm not paying for that new exhaust system, the smoke doesn't bother me. My car runs just fine." I don't care how good your old computer runs. If you are infected with a root-kit, and are now spreading disease to my modern OS, your apathy is part of the problem.

--
"Have you tried unplugging it, and plugging it back in?"
Re:pirates can get security updates by Florian+Weimer · 2011-07-31 04:44 · Score: 1

Just so it's clear to everyone, you don't need a "genuine" version of Windows to download and install critical updates.
That depends on where you are. In Germany, Microsoft has run warning dialogs that security updates may break your installation if you use an illegal copy. Microsoft has integrated WGA with the update process, making people using illegal copies uneasy about using the update process. There have even been conflicted statements about whether critical updates are available to everyone. Apparently, this does confuse users, even those who have paid the licensing fee for the software they run.
Re:pirates can get security updates by countertrolling · 2011-07-31 04:51 · Score: 1

Read his post again. He's most definitely 'suggesting' that I go out and buy Windows 7. He didn't say 'update'. He said 'upgrade', and that shit ain't free. The suggestion is bogus. I'm not going to spend money where I don't need to, or don't have.

--
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Re:pirates can get security updates by countertrolling · 2011-07-31 04:56 · Score: 1

The expression of my opinion of the 'greater good' is not safe for work or something a child should see. I've seen the unmitigated suffering it causes, so I'll leave it at that. and don't confuse apathy with poverty. When I have extra cash to throw away on toys, I might reconsider your position

--
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Re:pirates can get security updates by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 05:02 · Score: 0

He meant upgrade to SP3, doofus, and the entire point of his post was that even people with dodgy versions of XP can get the security updates.
Re:pirates can get security updates by Osgeld · 2011-07-31 05:08 · Score: 1

yea if your connected directly to the internet like your cablemodem direct into PC or dialup, otherwise no it wont
Re:pirates can get security updates by Osgeld · 2011-07-31 05:10 · Score: 1

get out of here normal person, any nerd with a half of brain would have just gone to the boxes IP address as its just a little router that you plop a user name and password in
Re:pirates can get security updates by RobertLTux · 2011-07-31 05:12 · Score: 1

and grab the AutoPatcher offline patch set while you are at it so you can get the post sp3 patches installed before you go online for the first time (hint MSSE comes as part of the last few patch sets)

--
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Re:pirates can get security updates by redkcir · 2011-07-31 05:35 · Score: 1

To "upgrade" an operating system so it doesn't work with your hardware and has less features than the one you have is ludicrous. And asking you to pay almost the price of a PC every couple of years adds insult to injury. I don't think it's hard to hold Microsoft accountable at all. While not everyone has the cash to "upgrade", being without a PC in todays world is becoming less and less an option, especially for those in school. And while Linux is still a good option for those with some skills, it still isn't user friendly to the masses.
Re:pirates can get security updates by redkcir · 2011-07-31 05:44 · Score: 1

This is true, but the only thing I think Microsoft does right is that you can get the service pack on CD for free from them. If you don't wait too long after it comes out. As a hopefully responsible computer repair person I try and keep these on hand for such an occasion. And yes, for those in the business that complain it is "cost prohibitive" to their business, I know this as well. I admit I work out of my house and have a much smaller overhead to cover. Just saying.
Re:pirates can get security updates by roc97007 · 2011-07-31 05:46 · Score: 1

Shrug. I don't happen to have a spare $139 and Windows XP runs my applications just fine. It's important to remember, the OS isn't the application. The OS runs applications.

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Re:pirates can get security updates by roc97007 · 2011-07-31 05:47 · Score: 2

That's why you download the admin version of the service packs *first* and burn them onto CD. Although admittedly most people wouldn't think to do that.

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Re:pirates can get security updates by roc97007 · 2011-07-31 05:50 · Score: 1

Not only is it not free, it's ridiculously priced for just something I use to load Adobe Photoshop.

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Re:pirates can get security updates by roc97007 · 2011-07-31 05:51 · Score: 1

I predict you will be a proponent of the "greater good" right up to the moment it unjustly affects you.

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Re:pirates can get security updates by ShakaUVM · 2011-07-31 05:52 · Score: 1

>>Well to be fair, if you install windows XP from a recovery image or from an original CD you have from the original version, your computer could probably be pwned before you even have the time to download the service packs.
I once watched a friend of mine get extremely frustrated as he kept reinstalling XP over and over, only to have it get owned before the patching finished.
I finally took pity on him and put a hardware firewall between his computer and the internet... after, I think, the third time it happened. =)
Re:pirates can get security updates by kbolino · 2011-07-31 06:55 · Score: 1

If you are infected with a root-kit, and are now spreading disease to my modern OS, your apathy is part of the problem.
If your computer's getting infected with malware, then that's your fault, not other people's. Or does your reasoning only apply in one direction?
Re:pirates can get security updates by GNious · 2011-07-31 07:17 · Score: 1

How about corporate stubbornness? We've asked Internal IT for Win7 licenses, so we can upgrade, but they wont let us. WinXP works just fine it seems....
Re:pirates can get security updates by PwnzerDragoon · 2011-07-31 07:48 · Score: 1

Another reason to use nLite. Whenever I need to reinstall Windows on a box, I grab all the newest updates with Windows Updates Downloader and slipstream them onto a new install disc. Besides getting an up-to-date installation, you don't need to reboot fifty times patching after the install either.
Re:pirates can get security updates by Culture20 · 2011-07-31 09:31 · Score: 1

That's why you disconnect the computer from the Internet before downloading the updates. Oh, wait...
That's why you manually download the updates from technet.microsoft.com on a known good computer and sneakernet them to the newly installed computer.
Re:pirates can get security updates by westlake · 2011-07-31 09:44 · Score: 2

Well to be fair, if you install windows XP from a recovery image or from an original CD you have from the original version, your computer could probably be pwned before you even have the time to download the service packs.
Microsoft will gladly ship you SP3 on CD. Order Windows XP Service Pack 3 on a CD The offer is available globally, and has been from the beginning.
You could, of course, simply download the service pack and install XP off-line.
Re:pirates can get security updates by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 09:55 · Score: 0

Or by the time they do its too late. The question of where to download them to that you know is a clean / safe environment.
Re:pirates can get security updates by roc97007 · 2011-07-31 11:30 · Score: 1

http://www.microsoft.com/download is probably fairly safe. And the opportunity exists to download it from a different machine if you forgot and started the install before downloading.
And in case readers don't understand, what we're talking about is keeping the PC physically disconnected from the Internet until the service packs are installed.

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Re:pirates can get security updates by LordLimecat · 2011-07-31 12:42 · Score: 1

Its not like this is exactly hard to do. Slipstreaming updates to Windows CDs isnt rocket science; there are loads of sites out there with instructions and automated tools (MSFN, neowin, ryanvm, nlite, etc). It takes about 30 minutes to slipstream something onto CD.
Re:pirates can get security updates by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 14:55 · Score: 0

True, but most casual geeks do not even know that is an option. Pro's have access to downloadable ISO's.
Re:pirates can get security updates by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 15:36 · Score: 0

The business models used by Microsoft harm the consumer trying to stay updated.
Re:pirates can get security updates by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 16:12 · Score: 0

Or you download the latest scene release. Currently that is Microsoft.Windows.XP.Professional.SP3.Integrated.June.2011.Corporate-BIE not 100% up to date but much better off than any normal CD. There are multiple cracks for the WGA in Windows XP that work perfectly. I think people need to be educated on how to pirate better
Re:pirates can get security updates by operagost · 2011-08-01 02:33 · Score: 1

So Microsoft's liable for the 10 year old version being hackable, too? That's even more ridiculous. You think maybe a 10 year old copy of Linux, with several vulnerable services running by default, might be vulnerable?

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:pirates can get security updates by operagost · 2011-08-01 02:36 · Score: 1

The WTF here is thinking that the exhaust system affects smog.

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:pirates can get security updates by King_TJ · 2011-08-01 03:41 · Score: 1

Exactly, and that was the one part of the article's assertions I disagree with. With all of the on-site service calls I've done over the last few years, I've very RARELY found a PC that was still running XP at SP2 or earlier. To accomplish that, you have to knowingly prevent the automatic security update from happening (which is pretty persistent unless you go in and manually de-select the SP3 update from being offered again). I'm sure, especially in poorer nations where the price of a Windows license is equal to weeks or months of pay, things are different. But by and large? I'd say people aren't trying to run counterfeit or hacked versions of XP that complain about being pirated if the latest update patches are applied to them. (It's pretty trivial to find a copy of XP that will install properly with a valid key anyway. Just call up and have the key reset if it initially says it was activated too many times.)
The only case I can think of where I know a customer of mine is still on SP2 with XP is an older woman using an old Gateway tower with a BIOS that won't allow SP3 to work. The screen goes black on boot as soon as SP3 is applied, and Gateway never did release a newer BIOS for her particular model of machine to address that.
As far as I've been able to tell, the "extra security" Microsoft added by way of SP3 doesn't amount to much anyway. Initially, it seemed to break a lot of existing spyware/malware simply because it changed the way the networking stack interfaced with things (breaking a lot of VPN software for Windows in the process, until they released SP3 compatible updates!). Once the malware authors learned how to rewrite their code to latch back onto the TCP/IP stack to intercept it - SP3 no longer posed much of a barrier.

Nah by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 04:07 · Score: 0

people need to upgrade so that they can experience the joys of losing all their work when Microsoft decides it is time for your system to receive a security patch while you are busy with something else.

Re:Nah by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 04:42 · Score: 1

Bad troll. You can tell Windows what to do about updates and restarts.
If you can't handle that, go back to you mac where your daddy Steve Jobs decides what you can install and when.
Re:Nah by 0123456 · 2011-07-31 06:44 · Score: 0

If you can't handle that, go back to you mac where your daddy Steve Jobs decides what you can install and when.
Better yet, switch to Linux where the vast majority of upgrades don't need a reboot.
I was highly amused when I had to use a Windows machine recently and it told me I had to update Adobe PDF viewer and after upgrading it told me I had to reboot the machine. Who builds an OS so retarded that upgrading a stupid document viewer requires a reboot?
Re:Nah by mpeskett · 2011-07-31 09:03 · Score: 1

Half the time you don't actually need to, just seems to be a standard thing for an installer to ask for, because hell, you'll be rebooting the damn thing pretty soon, whatever you do.
Re:Nah by h4rr4r · 2011-07-31 09:48 · Score: 1

I hate to break it to you but often an update is required. This is because windows cannot replace a file that is open. This seems to be single user legacy stuff. Always makes me laugh about how stoneage windows is.

The real root cause by tick-tock-atona · 2011-07-31 04:08 · Score: 1

Standardising on a non-free operating system thus encouraging people to download rootkitted warez.
Most people worldwide genuinely can't pay $250+ for an operating system.

Re:The real root cause by The+Snowman · 2011-07-31 04:14 · Score: 1

Most people worldwide genuinely can't pay $250+ for an operating system.
I can find Windows 7 Home Premium x64 for $95, a much more affordable amount than $250. If you have one of the few PCs that can only run 32 bit OSes, that one is $5 more.

--
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
Re:The real root cause by tick-tock-atona · 2011-07-31 04:18 · Score: 1

Does Newegg.com ship internationally?

Newegg.com does not currently ship internationally; we only deliver to locations within the United States and to Puerto Rico.
Re:The real root cause by __aaqvdr516 · 2011-07-31 04:26 · Score: 1

The only "problem" with that version is that it's for system builders. This could be a problem if someone needs support (and if they're still running XP, they just might need a little help doing upgrades).
Re:The real root cause by realityimpaired · 2011-07-31 04:43 · Score: 1

Most people genuinely don't have to pay that much for the operating system, thanks to bundling agreements and volume licensing. I bought my current laptop with Ubuntu preinstalled on it. I saved $30 off the cost of the exact same laptop, with the exact same spec, with Windows 7 Home Premium x64 preinstalled. Ergo, the Windows tax is net only $30. Yes, I would have had to deal with the preinstalled crap that comes with it, but it's a Dell, and it's in their business line of products (Vostro v130, if you feel like checking it out for yourself, they still sell that model), meaning that the only preinstalled crap I would have had to remove was a trial version of Crapafee antivirus.
Re:The real root cause by MacTO · 2011-07-31 04:55 · Score: 1

If everyone jumped onto the free operating system bandwagon overnight, you would have the very same problem. Only it would come in the form of "Hello Kitty Ubuntu: a cute computer for cute girls" or "Machobuntu: the rugged OS for the tough guy." (Sorry about the stereotypes, but grandma said she'd root my box if I poked fun at the elderly yet again.)
Then there are other attack vectors. The basic problem is that most people don't have the ability to verify the authenticity of the stuff that they install.
Re:The real root cause by FoolishOwl · 2011-07-31 04:56 · Score: 1

$95 is a more realistic price for Windows 7 for most users willing and able to pay for software. However, even in wealthy parts of the world, people who think it's reasonable to buy computer hardware often don't think it's reasonable to buy software, since it's so easy to get bootleg software. In much of the world, "legit" proprietary software is practically unheard of, and since you want bootleg Windows XP to run bootleg Microsoft Office or bootleg Starcraft, you don't have any interest in Fedora or Ubuntu or SUSE.
I'm coming to think the real challenge to FLOSS isn't the people who will spend $500 on proprietary software rather than $0 on free (as in speech) software, but the people who will spend $0 on bootleg proprietary software instead of $0 on free software.
Re:The real root cause by NicknamesAreStupid · 2011-07-31 06:29 · Score: 1

One issue with OEM licenses - they are not transferable. If you buy an expensive retail license, you can move (not copy) it to another machine. FWIW
Re:The real root cause by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 09:45 · Score: 0

Another issue is that System Builder versions are for one and only one computer - the license is not transferable between machines. So, even if you throw away the PC that Windows was originally installed on, you're not allowed by the System Builder license to use that installation key to put Windows on another machine.
Re:The real root cause by Fjandr · 2011-07-31 11:07 · Score: 1

I'm coming to think the real challenge to FLOSS isn't the people who will spend $500 on proprietary software rather than $0 on free (as in speech) software, but the people who will spend $0 on bootleg proprietary software instead of $0 on free software.
That's why even Bill Gates admits he'd rather have people pirate his software than use someone else' software. Piracy helps Microsoft keep a dominant position.
Re:The real root cause by skegg · 2011-07-31 12:12 · Score: 1

Most people worldwide don't think they should pay for an operating system.
FTFY.
Re:The real root cause by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 12:18 · Score: 0

I bought my current laptop with Ubuntu preinstalled on it. I saved $30 off the cost of the exact same laptop, with the exact same spec, with Windows 7 Home Premium x64 preinstalled. Ergo, the Windows tax is net only $30.
No, that means you didn't get Windows but you paid Microsoft tax of $50+ for the privilege of not getting it.
Re:The real root cause by LordLimecat · 2011-07-31 12:51 · Score: 1

Most people worldwide cant legitimately afford a corvette either. Doesnt mean theyre entitled to go take one.
And in case you are tempted to bring up "But copying has no real tangible costs", thats utter bollocks:
A) you didnt make the product, you dont set the rules. Microsoft made it, they get to set the rules, both by any sane legal standard, and by common sense.
B) Pirating software reduces the real value of the software-- when people simply take it for free, it lowers the demand and perceived value of the software. It does not directly take money from the dev's bank account; it merely skims a tiny bit off of their sales by encouraging others to pirate as well.
C) Just because you want something doesnt entitle you to it, REGARDLESS of whether it hurts someone else when you take it.
D) And just in case you think the current system sucks and you want to stick it to the man, by simply taking what you want without reforming the actual system, you are perpetuating the system you claim is so bad-- and this ignores the fact that this system that is claimed to be a failure motivates companies to create the software that you want.
Re:The real root cause by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 15:00 · Score: 0

Ship to Puerto Rico is more recent, and I love It
Re:The real root cause by metacell · 2011-07-31 22:35 · Score: 2

A) you didnt make the product, you dont set the rules. Microsoft made it, they get to set the rules, both by any sane legal standard, and by common sense.
Problem is, this collides with the only sane standard regarding physical property (I get to do what I want with my property, as long as it doesn't directly affect anyone else). So, for example, I have the right to do whatever I want with my burner and my blank disks, including making copies, since it at most has an indirect effect on someone's future sales.
Our sense of morality is often based on what we're used to - what we think is absolute, is really just a convention that's been drilled into us from such an early age it's hard to conceive it being different. Ultimately, morality has to be determined by the effects it has on people and society.
I think the world would be better off without copyright than with the ridiculously long terms we have now - but the optimal solution may be to have a short copyright term, say three or five years, and allow private non-commercial use (filesharing). This would allow more people to benefit from copyrighted goods (books, films, computer programs, etc) without significantly affecting the producers' revenues.
I've written a more detailed proposal specifically about software copyright on my blog.

B) Pirating software reduces the real value of the software-- when people simply take it for free, it lowers the demand and perceived value of the software. It does not directly take money from the dev's bank account; it merely skims a tiny bit off of their sales by encouraging others to pirate as well.
Which is only a problem if you assume they have a right to earn money. You could also assume it's their own responsibility to find a way to earn money on their work, or find a new business.
For example, if a company puts out free newspapers in a city and earns money on the advertising, they can't complain if people skip the ads. They don't automatically have a right to earn money just because they make a good product. If people skip the ads, the company will have to find another way to make money on their papers or stop distributing them.
If it was illegal to skip ads in a newspaper you picked up for free, I bet people would soon start believing they had a right to have their ads read, and feel moral outrage every time someone picked up their paper without reading the ads.
I don't know how it works for computer programs, but when it comes to music and films, the reduction in sales has been indistinguishable from zero. Sales of downloadable music have sky-rocketed at roughly the same pace that sales of CDs have plummeted, and both the music and film industry have continued to increase their profits steadily since 1999, when filesharing took off, excepting the year that the bank crisis started.
The main problem for the record companies is that artists now publish their music themselves on the Internet, and get a larger share of the revenue. In Sweden and Norway, music artists earn, on the average, significantly MORE today than 1999, even though the number of artists have increased.

C) Just because you want something doesnt entitle you to it, REGARDLESS of whether it hurts someone else when you take it.
The question is not if you're entitled to do something; the question is if somone is entitled to stop you.
Copyright means, for example, that the creator of a song can stop anyone else from singing it, the creator of a play can stop anyone else from performing it, and so on. What entitles him to do that?

D) And just in case you think the current system sucks and you want to stick it to the man, by simply taking what you want without reforming the actual system, you are perpetuating the system you claim is so bad-- and this ignores the fact that this sy
Re:The real root cause by LordLimecat · 2011-08-01 01:54 · Score: 2

Problem is, this collides with the only sane standard regarding physical property (I get to do what I want with my property, as long as it doesn't directly affect anyone else).
And apparently you dont understand what a contract is. When you "purchase" Microsoft software (and certainly once you click the "I AGREE TO THE ABOVE" box during install), you have entered into an agreement with them. You could argue that its a shrinkwrap license, and not enforceable, but that gets a LOT less compelling when you read Slashdot and know darn well what the contract says and that it is a part of the conditions of use (and again, you have to click "i agree", or intentionally bypass that page with a hack).
And part of that agreement is that you do not retain full rights to the software. From the Win7 EULA:

You
may not
work around any technical limitations in the software;
reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits, despite this limitation;
use components of the software to run applications not running on the software;
make more copies of the software than specified in this agreement or allowed by applicable law, despite this limitation;
publish the software for others to copy;
rent, lease or lend the software; or
use the software for commercial software hosting services.
Which doesnt preclude you from making copies; but you are not allowed to distribute them. You could POSSIBLY convince me that the "not copying for others" might not apply if you copied the disk from a Mac, having never installed any MS software; but including a generated install key would certainly fall afoul of the law. And I believe that there are terms on the actual packaging that tell you not to copy the disk; you can disregard those but once again they might be contractual.
So if that is a bit too draconian and creepy for you, thats fine; you can choose not to enter into that legally binding contract. But making the purchase and then utterly disregarding the terms that you agree to just means that you think somehow contract law doesnt apply to you. If you think such a contract is unenforceable, I think you would find that part of getting out of it would involve proving that you had no knowledge of it, which as a slashdot reader I can assert is almost certainly false.

Our sense of morality is often based on what we're used to - what we think is absolute, is really just a convention that's been drilled into us from such an early age it's hard to conceive it being different.
Yes, and in order for a society to function, contracts need to be enforced. It is a ridiculous position that, because we're dealing with software, the contract is irrelevant.

Which is only a problem if you assume they have a right to earn money.
By the laws of economy that have been around from time immemorial, if you make a product and others obtain it, you have a right to compensation (both for the good itself, and for your worksmanship). Anything else has always been considered theft, and detrimental to the economy, as it discourages innovation and work.

Copyright means, for example, that the creator of a song can stop anyone else from singing it, the creator of a play can stop anyone else from performing it, and so on. What entitles him to do that?
The fact that society decided to do so, and standard contract law-- at least when it comes to MS software.

Reforming the system would be better, but I'm glad people fileshare, so they'll have an incentive to vote in favour of reduced copyright.
No, it means they have an incentive not to care as they already get what they want. What do they care or know about copyright when they utterly
Re:The real root cause by LordLimecat · 2011-08-01 01:55 · Score: 1

Incidentally, I do not intend offense by my first line. Please do not take it as an attack on you; I possibly was a little too emphatic, and did not catch it on initial preview.
Re:The real root cause by metacell · 2011-08-01 19:53 · Score: 1

When you "purchase" Microsoft software (and certainly once you click the "I AGREE TO THE ABOVE" box during install), you have entered into an agreement with them.
True, but that only applies to the purchaser, not to any third parties. Someone who finds, borrows or is gifted someone else's copy is not bound by the license agreement. That's why copyright has to be laid out in law - contracts are not enough to enforce it.
More to the point, if we abolished copyright, contracts wouldn't prevent anyone from downloading and using software from Pirate Bay, since there's no contract present in that situation.
Shrink-wrap agreements are only valid in the context of a purchase - they're considered part of the purchase agreement, since you have the right to return the goods for a refund within a specified time if you don't agree to the terms. Clicking on an "I agree" button is not in itself a contract - a contract requires the other party to offer something in return.

You could argue that its a shrinkwrap license, and not enforceable, but that gets a LOT less compelling when you read Slashdot and know darn well what the contract says and that it is a part of the conditions of use (and again, you have to click "i agree", or intentionally bypass that page with a hack).
And part of that agreement is that you do not retain full rights to the software.
Sure, I know roughly what the shrinkwrap agreement will say before I purchase the product, so it doesn't come as a surprise to me. But I'm only obliged to follow it if I enter into some sort of agreement with the publisher. If someone lends or gifts me a copy of, say, Microsoft Windows, it's perfectly legal for me to reverse engineer it, rent or lend the physical copy to someone, work around technical limitations in the software, and so on, since I'm not bound by the license agreement. Copyright only prevents me from making copies of or publishing the software.
Security experts often reverse-engineer other's closed-source software without permission when they look for vulnerabilities in it.

By the laws of economy that have been around from time immemorial, if you make a product and others obtain it, you have a right to compensation (both for the good itself, and for your worksmanship). Anything else has always been considered theft, and detrimental to the economy, as it discourages innovation and work.
Not true. Copyright has only existed since the 17th century (and at first only applied to books). Before then, a writer simply had to offer his manuscript to a publisher and get paid for first publication. Subsequent publications were often uncompensated.
Shakespeare worked in the absence of copyright. He rewrote other people's plays for a new audience (which would've been illegal today) and got into the theatre business to earn money from them.
There are also the business models which are based on advertising, like broadcast TV and free newspapers. The broadcaster/publisher has no right to compensation for offering free TV/newspapers, but the business model still works, because a lot of people view them. You can obtain free TV without compensating the broadcaster by making a sandwich or changing the channel during commercial breaks - does that make you a thief?
If everyone stopped reading ads and watching commercials, broadcasters of free TV and publishers of free newspapers would simply have to find another way to earn money, or accept that their time was over and get into a new business, not making it illegal to skip the ads.

Reforming the system would be better, but I'm glad people fileshare, so they'll have an incentive to vote in favour of reduced copyright.
No, it means they have an incentive not to care as they already get what they want. What do they care or know about copyright when they utterly disregard it anyways?
Filesharing gets them used to see
Re:The real root cause by metacell · 2011-08-01 20:10 · Score: 1

Np, it happens a lot on Slashdot.

Well better plan for windows 7 to go long term by Joe_Dragon · 2011-07-31 04:10 · Score: 1

Well better plan for windows 7 to go long term as the NEW GUI in windows 8 make it vista / ME 2. And seeing how good windows 7 is Big business may just stick to it for a long time like they did with windows XP.

Re:Well better plan for windows 7 to go long term by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 04:17 · Score: 0

Exactly.
How many of those XP machines arrived from the factory with Vista installed? Huge numbers of Vista machines were downgraded to XP when businesses/users experienced the full effect of Vista's shittiness. Many of those machines were 2008/2009 models and may not be due for an upgrade for another couple of years.

Counterfeits? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 04:10 · Score: 0

I find the term "counterfeit" in regard to software misleading or at least odd. I could see using it if it was marketed as legitimate, but the term makes no sense otherwise. Most people know their copy is not legit.

Re:Counterfeits? by metacell · 2011-07-31 22:39 · Score: 1

It's the same perversion of language as when you call illegal copying for private use "piracy". The copyright industry chooses these terms for a reason - by using certain words, you can affect people's perception of the phenomenon they refer to.
(Another example is when you call outdated software "legacy" to give it a positive spin, although that has nothing to do with copyright.)

Why write new malware? by FoolishOwl · 2011-07-31 04:11 · Score: 2

The other day, I was looking at yet another hyperbolic report from Symantec that 60,000 new malware variants are released per day. Among the many reasons I find this claim dubious is that it's pretty damned obvious that most malware infections are on old Windows XP installations, which is significantly less secure than newer versions of Windows, especially if they're not being updated regularly. And in those circumstances, why would anyone be wasting time and effort writing new malware, when old malware can already move in and claim the PC as part of a botnet?

Re:Why write new malware? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 04:26 · Score: 0

They'll treat any new signature (read: anything someone repacked with different settings of a private packet - etc) as "new malware", hell someone can compile it with different compiler settings / embed a different data file into it, they'll count it as new malware as well, but that has been what these companies have been doing for a long time now.
Re:Why write new malware? by Lennie · 2011-07-31 10:05 · Score: 1

Actually, there are tools to generate new variants. I'm surprised they don't use the botnets directly to build it on the fly before they distribute it.

--
New things are always on the horizon

Re:Windows 8 GUI by TaoPhoenix · 2011-07-31 04:16 · Score: 1

I bet someone will come up with a utility that restores the GUI back to sanity.

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine

Another Reason: Time by JohnSearle · 2011-07-31 04:19 · Score: 2

Here's a few premises:
1. The probability getting an infection increases with time.
2. The average person probably does not format their system and give a clean install until the system becomes nearly unusable (it would cost them money and time).
3. Windows XP has been in use for a long time.

Given these, I would figure that another reason why there would be so many infected PCs with XP out there is that the XP installations have been in use for a lot longer than any of the newer OS installations. I would go as far as to guess that most people today would rather buy a new PC than get a professional to reinstall XP, meaning that these systems currently running XP would have been installed quite a number of years ago.

Just a thought...

Re:Another Reason: Time by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 04:48 · Score: 0

Here's a few premises:
1. The probability getting an infection increases with time.
2. The average person probably does not format their system and give a clean install until the system becomes nearly unusable (it would cost them money and time).
3. Windows XP has been in use for a long time.
Given these, I would figure that another reason why there would be so many infected PCs with XP out there is that the XP installations have been in use for a lot longer than any of the newer OS installations. I would go as far as to guess that most people today would rather buy a new PC than get a professional to reinstall XP, meaning that these systems currently running XP would have been installed quite a number of years ago.
Just a thought...
Why would anyone reinstall an OS? I see why you might install a different OS, but why on earth would you spend time installing the OS you already have?
Re:Another Reason: Time by mikael · 2011-07-31 04:50 · Score: 1

And the system becomes unusable due to all the file logging going on. Whenever I upgrade the OS on my system, I always like to do an audit of where all the file space has gone. First of all, backup all project data, then remove them. Remove all download files (rpm's, zip's, exe's, bz2's, webpages) and personal files). With all those gone, there shouldn't be any considerable file space used, yet gigabytes of space were still used...
As someone who's done rendering and animation, and used the file browser to preview images, I found about 2 Gig's of filespace had disappeared just from thumbnails alone. A 60-second animation took around 3000 frames, or 3000 images. After a good few number of projects and reference photographs, that's a whole load of data space gone.
Windows XP also maintained log files that are updated as the system boots up - one for the hardware after power-up, another for XP device drivers, and another for applications. If these log files became inconsistent (through a crash and reboot), they wouldn't clear. It wasn't apparent whether they had to be cleared manually, but those files just got bigger and bigger over time. This would jam up disk defragmentation as well. Found about 6 Gigabytes after 5 years. Also, whenever you update your web browser, while the old version may be deleted, the cache directory isn't. That was another chunk of diskspace lost.

--
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Re:Another Reason: Time by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 04:52 · Score: 0

I would go as far as to guess that most people today would rather buy a new PC than get a professional to reinstall XP, meaning that these systems currently running XP would have been installed quite a number of years ago.

A professional to reinstall XP? Are you serious? That professional is me when I was 13/14 years old as I was the nephew that knew about computers. Who gets a professional to reinstall their computer? It is always the family member/friend who "knows" computers or the uncle with the computer business which he runs out of his converted shed. If you walk into a store and ask someone to reinstall your copy of XP you walk out with a brand new windows 7 computer and a printer which "interfaces well with I/O port on your PC" (actual quote of clerk in a store).
Also I don't think normal people measure down time in money. They measure it in annoyance and potential farmville harvest lost.
Re:Another Reason: Time by couchslug · 2011-07-31 05:25 · Score: 1

IME you are quite right. Bubba and LaQueefa run their machines until they stop working, which can be a very long time. They can't afford professional repair rates, so it's either have a local geek reload warez (because they lost the recovery media) or buy a new PC.

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Re:Another Reason: Time by UltraZelda64 · 2011-07-31 06:38 · Score: 2

My friend's aunt gladly takes her computer to the local repair shop and probably spends plenty of money to get it up and running again, after she continually fucks it up... over and over... by basically doing everything I've given her advice in the past on NOT doing. I remember she once told me something along the lines of, "you know so much about computers, you need to go to college and get a job with them, then you can fix mine for me." So yeah, there are, in fact, people who for whatever reason only "trust" you with their computers if you've got some kind of college proof.
To be honest--she's the kind of person who shouldn't be trusted even with *her own* computer because she refuses to take in any security tips I tell her, and I wouldn't offer any more advice to her or help solve a problem even if she asked me. She was constantly getting infected, despite my frequent recommendations back then to avoid IE, stop downloading and running random crap, and other things. She knows almost nothing, acts like she's listening to you, but you quickly realize she doesn't give a shit when she's bitching about another infection the next week and she's continuing to use IE6.
Most people I know are glad to have me "fix" whatever needs fixing for either nothing or a small amount of money, and I offer help to those I think deserve it. Those, specifically, I think are smart and care enough to listen to what I say and not have the same problem two weeks later.
Re:Another Reason: Time by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 07:48 · Score: 0

Good analysis.
Re:Another Reason: Time by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 08:57 · Score: 0

Q: Can you solve this problem by throwing hardware at it?
A: Yes.
Q2: Is hard drive space nowadays cheaper than dirt?
A2: Yes.
I see no problem here.
Re:Another Reason: Time by Culture20 · 2011-07-31 11:12 · Score: 1

A professional to reinstall XP? Are you serious? That professional is me when I was 13/14 years old as I was the nephew that knew about computers.
And a poor graduate student in computer science kept getting rooted by the blaster worm because she "knew about computers", and reinstalled her OS (XP, no service pack), plugged it into the network for updates, and her laptop start rebooting in less than a minute. She did that three times before asking a professional for help. Whenever I'm about to leave on a long car trip, I get a professional to give my car the once over. I know how to change the oil, tires, brake pads, etc. But I know a pro will do a better job.
Re:Another Reason: Time by Culture20 · 2011-07-31 11:14 · Score: 1

Doesn't she realize that the geek squad staff may not even have diplomas?
Re:Another Reason: Time by UltraZelda64 · 2011-07-31 16:52 · Score: 1

I doubt it--but ironically, she has talked about the geek squad before. She seems to see nothing wrong with them. The way she sees it--they've got a job working on computers, they must be certified. Or something like that.

Re:Windows 8 GUI by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 04:30 · Score: 1

The "Metro" interface that people are talking about is not the default GUI anyway. That is the GUI intended specifically for tablets and even then it is entirely optional. People who actually watched any of the published videos would have seen the user jumping back to a stock Windows 7 explorer desktop in the middle of the demo and running normal applications.

Metro is more like Windows Media Center, a secondary UI intended for a specific environment. That said, I do hope that MS considers better integration with Metro and Explorer with tablet installations of the OS as I can see elements of Metro working better in that form factor. On a desktop or laptop it would be absolutely horrid, though, and I doubt most people would ever see it.

No. by unity100 · 2011-07-31 04:33 · Score: 0

A lot of people use xp sp2 because sp3 doesnt bring much to the table, despite causing numerous issues with the computer (granted, most of them are fixed) and a lot of programs out there.

in addition, sp2 has a reputation in gaming circles to be the most bloat-free windows version to be used in gaming. and you will find that xp pro sp2 is still highly ranked in downloads in warez sites. (pro has message queueing, which is used to reduce latency in online games by gamers) moreover, there are special modified or slipstreamed xp sp2 versions in such sites - stripped of even more bloat, and reduced to core components needed for gaming.

a lot of people who run windows 7, download these xp sp2 versions just to use them with games apparently, judging from the posts in the discussions under those files.

so go figure.

--
Read radical news here

Re:No. by Grave · 2011-07-31 05:03 · Score: 2

Ah, yes, because using an insecure, malware-prone OS for gaming makes sense. Nothing like being part of a botnet, having your credit card and personal information stolen, and getting your gaming accounts hacked in order to shave 5ms off your ping and gain 10fps. Your hardware is going to have a vastly bigger impact on gaming performance than your OS, and frankly I'm not clear what gaming "circles" are, in 2011, wanting to use XP SP2 anymore unless they are using outdated hardware.
I think the bulk of these SP2 installations are going to be corporate users who are wiping brand new systems with Windows 7 and installing an ancient corporate image. You would think that security concerns would make it worthwhile to update badly written software that is broken by OS vulnerability patches, but that's just "not in the budget" for a lot of companies.
Re:No. by unity100 · 2011-07-31 05:19 · Score: 1

yes it makes sense. 'security' is not the word of the day when you are gaming. 'fps' and 'ping' are. so, you got that right. there are people who are trying to gain 5 fps over 110 fps. foolish ? for you maybe. for them, it is their thing.

--
Read radical news here

Complain to your application's maintainer by tepples · 2011-07-31 04:34 · Score: 1

losing all their work when Microsoft decides it is time for your system to receive a security patch

Complain to your application's maintainer. Windows notifies applications before the system is about to restart for updates. Applications that don't save the user's work are defective.

Re:Complain to your application's maintainer by Vlad_the_Inhaler · 2011-07-31 04:52 · Score: 1

My mainframe access is via a terminal emulator running under Windows. That is not the sort of thing which can simply be 'saved'.
Since mainframe access is via VPN which means a firewall blocks Microsoft Update, not normally a problem. Once though, I booted, waited for Net traffic to cease (meaning the virus scanner had updated) and then fired up the VPN. A couple of minutes later, some out-of-sync update finished applying itself and it then informed me it was going to boot in a few seconds. That was when I turned auto-update off. If I want updates, I'll ask for them.

--
Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
Re:Complain to your application's maintainer by green1 · 2011-07-31 05:32 · Score: 2

Any update system that forces a reboot at an arbitrary time without giving the user the option of when is convenient for them is defective. I'll reboot, on MY schedule, not the computer's. There is no excuse to not offer this flexibility.
Re:Complain to your application's maintainer by mrnobo1024 · 2011-07-31 06:22 · Score: 1

Complain to your application's maintainer. Windows notifies applications before the system is about to restart for updates. Applications that don't save the user's work are defective.
If the user's not present, where is it supposed to save the work to? You certainly don't want to overwrite the previous save without asking. %APPDATA%\myapp? And now you have to check on startup to see if anything was saved there and let the user know about it if so, because the user sure is going to have a hard time finding it otherwise.
Yay, more logic that has to be implemented in every program. And if the developers of a program fail to do so, there is absolutely no indication to them that they've done something wrong. When you make it easy to do the wrong thing and hard to do the right thing, people are going to do the wrong thing. An OS designed with ignorance to this fact is what's really defective.
Re:Complain to your application's maintainer by TheRealGrogan · 2011-07-31 07:51 · Score: 1

I was giving a lesson (something I don't like doing but there's a genuine need for it around here) to a geezer on composing emails and Windows Update shut us down in the middle of it. I was concentrating on what he was doing and somehow missed the warning (it certainly wasn't in focus), and all we saw was a prompt to save the message being composed, and it went away too quickly and the PC rebooted. ("ding") The old boy was a real laborious typer too and he lost his message.
It's not the application that is defective, but Microsoft's procedures and policies.
This isn't Unix, and processes don't inherently save their data when they suddenly get a polite signal to terminate. (high level applications generally don't save user documents on termination without prompting anyway)
Automatic updates get turned off.
Re:Complain to your application's maintainer by br4nd0nh3at · 2011-07-31 08:01 · Score: 0

Unfortunately there are some people who NEVER reboot.
Re:Complain to your application's maintainer by tepples · 2011-07-31 09:03 · Score: 1

This isn't Unix, and processes don't inherently save their data when they suddenly get a polite signal to terminate.
Windows GUI applications that don't save on receiving WM_ENDSESSION do not follow Microsoft's guidelines. I wrote more about this in my previous comment.
Re:Complain to your application's maintainer by green1 · 2011-07-31 10:44 · Score: 1

then give them a time limit, but don't force them to do it now, give them 24 hours, somewhere in there they can find a convenient time. but forcing an immediate reboot just pisses people off and makes them turn off updates at all.
Re:Complain to your application's maintainer by im_thatoneguy · 2011-08-01 05:09 · Score: 1

Any update system that forces a reboot at an arbitrary time without giving the user the option of when is convenient for them is defective.

What is this OS you speak of? I've never run it. It's certainly not Windows 7/Vista, Mac OSX or Linux.
Re:Complain to your application's maintainer by TheRealGrogan · 2011-08-01 09:42 · Score: 1

Well, since when does Microsoft follow Microsoft's guidelines? Windows Live Mail did prompt to save the message, for about half a second before Windows rebooted.
I just did read what you said, and I would say those are pretty onerous recommendations (automatically saving and restoring state data) just to accommodate a flawed update system.. Unlikely to be followed and certainly not by Microsoft. For the Firefox example, a browser can save your tabs and stuff but let's see it save the contents of whatever form you were composing. (text fields, radio boxes etc.)
Whoops... good thing I pasted my text first, because I would have lost this post. I had to come back here and click reply, anew. The empty form wasn't even here.
Re:Complain to your application's maintainer by tepples · 2011-08-01 10:33 · Score: 1

For the Firefox example, a browser can save your tabs and stuff but let's see it save the contents of whatever form you were composing. (text fields, radio boxes etc.)
It could serialize the entire foquin DOM, including the value and checked state of every item, but it doesn't. Could an add-on?
Re:Complain to your application's maintainer by green1 · 2011-08-01 10:38 · Score: 1

My Ubuntu machine tells me I need a reboot, but doesn't do anything to force it on me, I have to tell it when I'm ready.
My company issued Windows XP machine forces reboots after upgrades, however it has a timer that allows me to delay it until I'm ready (seems to vary in length, sometimes 3 hours, other times 12 not sure what the deal is with that, I personally think it should be 24 (most people do sleep at some point in every 24 hr period))
I prefer the Ubuntu system where it doesn't reboot until I'm ready, but I can also see the requirement to force it like the windows XP system we have at work, what I can't understand is any reason to force a reboot "NOW" instead of later when it may be more convenient (for example when you go to bed that night)

sp3 is malware? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 04:36 · Score: 0

at least that is what it seems like after you install it.
my pc slowed to a crawl after i installed that patch

"counterfeits" by caseih · 2011-07-31 04:38 · Score: 2

It always bugs me to hear people use "counterfeit" when talking about illegally copied or distributed software. Do people not understand what these words mean? Apparently not, since we're still talking about "piracy" in a non-piracy sense.

If someone in China were to dress up Linux to look like Windows and sell it as if it were MS Windows, that'd be counterfeit. But so-called "pirated" Windows XP installations are not counterfeit, obviously. I guess it's all about manipulating public thought. Is your copy of windows "genuine?" The thought is quite silly if you think about it. Of course it is genuine. It's windows isn't it? Legal copy? That's the real question. Genuine advantage indeed.

Re:"counterfeits" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 04:51 · Score: 1

If someone sells you XP purporting it to be legitimate, and you believe them, then you could say they sold you a "counterfeit" copy of the OS. If you buy it from them knowing it's an illegal copy, that follows the more traditional understanding of "piracy" in the copyright sense. People who go to China and buy 500 DVDs for $10 know that they're illegal copies. They are actively participating in "piracy".
As for home users how just download things for their personal use and no money exchanges hands, that does not follow the traditional definition of "piracy" and I prefer to use the term "copyright infringement" for that activity.
Re:"counterfeits" by bigtrike · 2011-07-31 05:23 · Score: 2

The CDs are made to look like the ones from Microsoft, complete with fake holograms. How is that not a counterfeit?
Re:"counterfeits" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 06:13 · Score: 1

The CDs are made to look like the ones from Microsoft, complete with fake holograms. How is that not a counterfeit?
Because that's not the kind of Windows XP installs they're talking about and you know it! If you had a "counterfeit" copy under your description - complete with fake CD and holograms - why would you not have updated past SP2 ? That's right - because the only reason to "avoid updates" (even though, as has been mentioned, you don't HAVE to) is because they know it is fake (copy of their friend's CD plus a code/patch from the Internet) and they think that they'll be found out if they update.
Nice try though.
Re:"counterfeits" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 06:20 · Score: 0

"counterfeit" is just one of those buzzwords used by lobbies to get new laws. They'll use what ever sounds bad enough to garner support.
Re:"counterfeits" by Anne+Thwacks · 2011-07-31 06:40 · Score: 1

Most people in this group either have a copy with "Windoze" hand written in felt pen, or installed by someone else, who bought the machine second hand and installed it prior to ebaying it.
As a happy Ubuntu user, I can't say for sure, but my guess is that Bill Gates does not label official MS CDs in felt tip pen.

--
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
Re:"counterfeits" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 06:49 · Score: 0

So then my XP cd, that's a CD-R with "windows XP" written on it with black marker, isn't "counterfeit"! Sweet! :p
Re:"counterfeits" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 07:02 · Score: 0

My legitimate copy of Windows Server 2003 came through the Microsoft Academic Alliance. They burned me a CD and printed out my license key for me.
Re:"counterfeits" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 07:08 · Score: 0

Please state the nature of the medical emergency.
Oh, it's you again. Where did you get this virus ensign? Yo mama?
Obviously reinstalling XP was out of the question, since the fake hologram tauntings were becoming unbearable...
Re:"counterfeits" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 07:28 · Score: 0

The software that's running is the only thing relevant to the article, and that's genuine. Whether the CDs are counterfeit or not is not an interesting question for the matter at hand.
Re:"counterfeits" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 10:47 · Score: 0

The media is counterfeit, while the software contained on it is a perfect copy of the original. Once you've installed it, your unlikely to continue using the media anyway.
Re:"counterfeits" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 13:04 · Score: 0

That hologram, is it 2D or 4D? : )
Re:"counterfeits" by Tim+C · 2011-08-01 00:51 · Score: 1

we're still talking about "piracy" in a non-piracy sense
People have been using piracy in the copyright infringement sense for centuries. You do have a point about the incorrect use of the word counterfeit though.

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.

Limitation of OEM licensing by tepples · 2011-07-31 04:38 · Score: 1

The only "problem" with that version is that it's for system builders.

In fact, it might even be copyright infringement to buy and install that version on your own computer. Microsoft says OEM software is for computers you plan to sell at arm's length, not for computers you plan to use.

Re:Limitation of OEM licensing by GNious · 2011-07-31 08:07 · Score: 1

Just checked Amazon UK's comparable items.
On the page for the OEM version it says 84% buys the OEM version after looking at that page, 7% buys the non-OEM version...
Anyone got the number for the BS Alliance?
Re:Limitation of OEM licensing by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 15:25 · Score: 0

And you can't move it later on to your new computer, can you?

This was about as useful as the recent study ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 04:45 · Score: 0

on IQ of various browser users. It was shown that MSIE users rate well below 100, which to non-Windows user, was already well known and understood. Of course XP is rooted. Has been all along inspite of what MS and their idiot users claim. I see it on my logs. I see it everytime somebody ask for help on their windows boxes. Personally, I think that window losers should be able to claim insanity and stupidity on such crimes as copyright theft.

New computers are CHEAP! by Redneck_Moron · 2011-07-31 04:46 · Score: 0

For most of the people out there running XP (not all) your machine is an antique. I don't care if it's "only 5 years old" it's ancient. The idea of people complaining about the cost of an OS upgrade is ludicrous. Shop around, you will probably find a machine that is miles faster than your current computer for less than $400. And if you can't afford that, maybe you shouldn't be sitting around using a computer.

--
"Have you tried unplugging it, and plugging it back in?"

Re:New computers are CHEAP! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 04:59 · Score: 0

I suppose you do not understand that US$400 is more than much of the world's population earns in an entire year. People hang on to older computers because they have no desire to upgrade or because they cannot afford to. How many GHz should a person need to send email and word process? 2? 10? 200?
Re:New computers are CHEAP! by eepok · 2011-07-31 05:08 · Score: 1

Just a quick note: Those sub-$400 computers frequently come with at least two of the following variables:
(1) No monitor
(2) Onboard Video
(3) 3GB or less RAM with Windows 7 booting up to 1.8GB RAM used.
(4) Sub-300w power supply (OK for greener computer, Bad for video cards)
(5) Bad computer case (either flashy buttons stacked on actual buttons, severe space limitations, etc.)
Re:New computers are CHEAP! by couchslug · 2011-07-31 05:29 · Score: 1

PCs are vital nowadays, and most of the world can't casually shell out 400 bucks.
I can, but I know MANY folks who can't, including people with large families who need multiple PCs for their kids.

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Re:New computers are CHEAP! by ShipiboConibo · 2011-07-31 06:16 · Score: 1

Some people rarely ever see $400 dollars that could be justifiably spent on a new PC. Yet they may have some ancient XP disc lying around. Not to mention it does run far better on old hardware. Determined people get things done with what they have.

--
"It seems that when people become desperate they consult the gods, and when the gods become desperate they tell lies." -
Re:New computers are CHEAP! by couchslug · 2011-07-31 10:12 · Score: 1

Four hundred bucks is food for a month or more in much of the US.

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."

W7 less secure than XP? by no-body · 2011-07-31 04:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

> Windows XP computers are infected with rootkits out of proportion to the operating system's market share

This statement lacks considering time the OS are in use:

XP 11 years - since 2001
W7 2 years - since 2009

So, with 2 years W7 gathered 12 % of infections having 31 % market share, that's 6 % infections/year
and 11 years of XP gathered 74 % of infections having 58 % market share, that's 6.7 % infections/year

Since market share started from 0, let's assume linear increase of market share since release and use W7 with 16.5 % and XP with 37 % average market share over time.

W7 gets 6 % infections/year with 16.5 % market share and XP 6.7 % infections/year with 37 % market share.

Which give factors for W7 0.37 and XP 0.18 infections/year/market share.

W7 more secure? Fat chance!

Re:W7 less secure than XP? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 05:24 · Score: 0

your maths sucks
Re:W7 less secure than XP? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 08:26 · Score: 0

but not as much as his Mom!

Pirates don't want memory-upgrades then by Vincent77 · 2011-07-31 04:49 · Score: 3, Informative

The memory-demands for SP3 have increased a lot - Where SP2 runs well with 512MB, you need at least 800MB for SP3 to run basic software like IE and Office smoothly. Though this is not official, I have seen too many cases with unresponsive PCs after the upgrade. A good reason to revert back to SP2 if people don't know how or dare to upgrade hardware nor want to spend another €300,- to €500,- on a new computer.

Re:Pirates don't want memory-upgrades then by kbolino · 2011-07-31 07:01 · Score: 1

512MB DDR memory: $16
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820236106
512MB DDR2 memory: $12
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148239
So around $40 or €26 (incl. shipping) for 1GB memory. Is that really so difficult?
Re:Pirates don't want memory-upgrades then by kbolino · 2011-07-31 07:05 · Score: 1

Two comments about my own comment:
1. I read the parent as being a computer repair tech originally, but I'm not so sure on second reading.
2. Newegg apparently doesn't ship outside the U.S., but Amazon does (prices are a little higher though).
Re:Pirates don't want memory-upgrades then by DarwinSurvivor · 2011-07-31 12:34 · Score: 1

newegg.ca for Canada :D
Re:Pirates don't want memory-upgrades then by LordLimecat · 2011-07-31 12:43 · Score: 0

Didnt they also remove raw sockets in sp3? Ive had at least one person remark that they refuse to upgrade for that reason.
Re:Pirates don't want memory-upgrades then by toadlife · 2011-07-31 14:14 · Score: 1

They removed it in SP2.

--
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
Re:Pirates don't want memory-upgrades then by 1u3hr · 2011-07-31 14:56 · Score: 1

around $40 or â26 (incl. shipping) for 1GB memory. Is that really so difficult?
Laptops are another story. My Thinkpad X24 is maxed out with 640 MB already. So it's on XPSP2 and will stay there for as long as it keeps working.
Re:Pirates don't want memory-upgrades then by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 17:18 · Score: 0

They didn't remove raw sockets -- they blocked raw sockets over which the data sent looked like TCP.
Re:Pirates don't want memory-upgrades then by LinuxIsGarbage · 2011-08-01 09:35 · Score: 1

SP3 worked fine on 256MB RAM for me. Either clean integrated install, or an in-place service pack upgrade. Never noticed any performance differences. Flash heavy web pages and Open office continue to labour the machines regardless of service pack level.

Sounds logical to me by houghi · 2011-07-31 04:56 · Score: 1

The machines are longer online, so they had more time of being infected. They will be less likely to have users who are tech savy and want to run the latest. As they are less tech savy, they will know less on how to protect themselves.

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.

Re:Sounds logical to me by styrotech · 2011-07-31 12:46 · Score: 1

Yeah. Also I think the older a machine is the more likely it is to go through a period of 'neglect' where it isn't looked after as diligently after it has depreciated in value to the owner.
i suspect most Windows 7 machines are still in that period where the owner remembers how much they recently paid for the computer, and installing updates hasn't turned into a seemingly unnecessary chore they won't bother to do any more.
And now for the obligatory slashdot car analogy - I'm much more diligent about keeping a near new car fully serviced than a 15+ yr old dunger.

what better way... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 04:59 · Score: 0

to force the upgrade of MicroScam softwarez.

alternative explanation by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 05:05 · Score: 1

Most of the XP installations are probably OEM, and people never upgrade them because they're typical Windows users, they're afraid of "breaking something" or they don't have admin rights because they lost the password or got the computer from someone else. The fact that you have to reinstall everything from scratch and might lose your software licenses keeps many people (including myself) from installing Windows 7. Rootkits on XP might be overrepresented simply because XP systems have been running for a longer time, and if the user can't patch them for lack of admin rights they have a bigger chance of getting infected over time.

The notion that you can't easily get cracked XP-SP3 or 7 is bullshit btw.

Re:alternative explanation by couchslug · 2011-07-31 05:32 · Score: 1

"might lose your software licenses keeps many people (including myself) from installing Windows 7."
Keyfinders are your friend.
So are VMs. I have XP and 7 running in Virtualbox, and if anything malfunctions I can revert to a Snapshot.

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."

And a jolly good thing, too by petes_PoV · 2011-07-31 05:07 · Score: 1

If all PCs were fixed so they didn't catch or pass on viruses what would all the "security" companies do for a living? Maybe instead of spreading FUD they should just step up a gear. Since this survey has identified a nice big market (i.e. out of support/illegal and therefore un-upgradable O/S's) why don't they stop bleating and start creating products to satisfy this demand?

--
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons

Re:And a jolly good thing, too by Urkki · 2011-07-31 06:07 · Score: 1

Yeah! The vast potential of customers who don't like to pay for their software, that market is totally untapped!
No, wait, I think the malware business has that market covered and monetized pretty good, actually. And some of those companies specialize in spreading their own anti-malware kits too. I think it'll be really hard to enter that market for legitimate anti-malware companies.

Re:good by couchslug · 2011-07-31 05:22 · Score: 1

There are plenty of legal copies. That has zilch to do with them getting rooted. Most PC users know nothing about security. Not "very little", but "nothing". That will never change.

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."

Or reinstall... by Tatarize · 2011-07-31 05:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

The claims above are likely more due to the length of time of the install than anything to do with the OS itself. I've had my current install of windows for like four years. Nobody with Windows 7 can say that about their OS. And a lot of times spyware ridden machines just stay that way. I demand they look at the data from "time since install" and tell me that that isn't just directly correlated and explains away most of the XP dataset.

--

It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.

Re:Or reinstall... by metacell · 2011-07-31 20:13 · Score: 1

I've had my current install of windows for like four years. Nobody with Windows 7 can say that about their OS.
Um... because Windows 7 was released two years ago?

Auto-update failure keeps people at SP2 by osu-neko · 2011-07-31 05:32 · Score: 5, Informative

I was running SP2 until a couple months ago because Windows Update failed to update me to SP3. It turns out that if you had upgraded Internet Explorer to some version under SP2 (IE8?), it would not upgrade to SP3 because doing so would break the downgrade process (you could upgrade to SP3 flawlessly, but if you tried to downgrade back to SP2 it would break) unless you first downgraded IE before upgrading to SP3. Therefore, SP3 would not be listed in Windows Update, and it would not tell you that it was hiding the upgrade, or why. Utterly idiotic. I assume a lot of people are still running SP2 not because their using an unlicensed version, but precisely because, like me, they have a legit installation, but just don't know SP3 was out and being hidden from them, with Windows Update cheerfully telling them every week that their system is perfectly up to date.

--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."

Re:Auto-update failure keeps people at SP2 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-01 05:05 · Score: 0

The SP3 upgrade also fails if you don't have enough GB's of free hard-disk space available. Many of these old XP systems have only 40..80 GB, and users only delete enough files to just keep it running, so SP3 will never install properly.
I don't know why it needs so much space, the SP3 download is only a few hundred megabytes.

Interesting ... by garry_g · 2011-07-31 05:34 · Score: 1, Interesting

... so in spite of the (supposed) improved security of Win7 and the (in comparison) short time it has been around, a quarter of all infections are on Win7?
While it is understandable that the decade old OS is easier to attack, this is definitely no good track record for Win7 ...

Re:Interesting ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 07:08 · Score: 0

I've been running Windows 7 x64 since RC and I have yet to be infected. PEBCAK.
Re:Interesting ... by ripdajacker · 2011-07-31 09:50 · Score: 1

The infections are not always holes in the OS per se, they are often EXE files run with administrator priviliges. Give me root on a linux machine and I bet you I could install some malware on it.
Re:Interesting ... by Billly+Gates · 2011-07-31 10:19 · Score: 1

Third of the number of infected worms? Or third of infected users? I imagined the older XP based rootkit ones have more users 10 - 1 than one that is on Windows 7. Windows 7 will default to automatic updates unless you tell it not too and is much more secure. I guess if a user ignores the UAC warning and clicks on something anyway you can't stop them.
On another note for shit and kicks I tried to infect my pc to see how easy it is too do. I couldn't do it even Googling for things like anti virus xp or anti virus 2011. I installed XP Service pack 2 with IE 6 and I did manage to slow my computer down but no viruses detected or removed by Malware bytes. I reformatted and put Windows 7 back on. It truly is hard to get infected today and I wonder if people really do click on the dancing pigs.mpg.exe files they get in their emails.

--
http://saveie6.com/
Re:Interesting ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-01 04:35 · Score: 0

You're comparing apples and oranges. The red column is the percentage of Windows users using the OS. The blue column is the percentage of reported rootkits in all Win OSs.

When was the last time you reinstalled XP? by AftanGustur · 2011-07-31 05:40 · Score: 1

One major contributing factor for infected XP machines to stay infected is that users don't get installation CDs any longer.

Microsoft changed the license years ago so buyers of brand new PCs really don't have any choice, if they want to reinstall their machines, other than taking them back to the shop (and spend $$$) or install a pirated version.

--
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc

Re:When was the last time you reinstalled XP? by erroneus · 2011-07-31 07:13 · Score: 1

Fantastic spin. I believe you though. The fact that install CDs are not provided with new machines is likely to be a tremendous contributing factor. All the people I know who have software problems on their computers (and as the regional volunteer "friend support" [because friends don't let friends go to BestBuy!]) also invariably fail to create restore media from their hidden and space-wasting partitions. (Most recently, a person I know with a Sony Viao (yeah, I know... sony) has been getting constant virus warnings which turned out to be false and were caused by some stupid Sony crapware that scans all of the media files on the machine.. sad really)
Most machines I see are an utter mess with bundled crapware and random crapware from other sources. If Microsoft wanted to address the issue, they would discourage developers from creating this crap for machines, but they don't and they won't.
In the end, it might be more convenience to blame the stupidity of users, but they are a universal constant and the only things that change are the ways companies try to save a few dimes here and there to boost their bottom lines. Screw "quality" and "reliability" and forget about the reputation of the company or the products they create... the bottom line is way more important... right?

Yep by roc97007 · 2011-07-31 05:42 · Score: 1

So everyone go out right now and pay the $139 for Windows Home Premium. I'll wait...

(This should cause a measurable bump in the economy. Any moment now...)

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.

Re:Yep by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 06:53 · Score: 0

add another $139 just for gasoline to drive around and find a store that has it in stock
Re:Yep by roc97007 · 2011-07-31 08:39 · Score: 1

I happen to have a wholesaler within three miles from my house, but for most people that would be true. Or pay the $19 to have it shipped from Amazon.

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.

Yes, it is a surprise. by khasim · 2011-07-31 05:59 · Score: 1

Check the old /. threads.
How many times have you seen the claim that "if Linux had the same marketshare as Windows ..."? Marketshare was identified as the deciding factor in what "mal-ware" was written.

Now this seems to contradict those claims.

Re:Yes, it is a surprise. by FoolishOwl · 2011-07-31 06:33 · Score: 1

There's better evidence that contradicts that claim.
This article could be interpreted to mean that there isn't a one-to-one correspondence between the popularity of an operating system: that malware authors tend to jump on the bandwagon, for instance. (I was trying to come up with a good way to describe the model mathematically, but the flashbacks to calculus were making my hands shake.)
Re:Yes, it is a surprise. by LynnwoodRooster · 2011-07-31 11:26 · Score: 1

XP still has about 30% marketshare while Linux is still around 2%. So yes, marketshare still IS an issue...

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Re:Yes, it is a surprise. by smash · 2011-07-31 12:38 · Score: 1

You claiming Linux or OS X has an equal market share to XP now?

--
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Re:Yes, it is a surprise. by metacell · 2011-07-31 20:03 · Score: 1

It's the tensors, man! Those goddamned tensors are screwing with your mind!

Why are we debating this? by ShipiboConibo · 2011-07-31 06:07 · Score: 1

This is clearly a misuse of statistics for the purpose of piracy propaganda. As others have pointed out, XP has simply been around much longer. It hasn't been long since it was the standard OS on new machines. It was also the last of the OS's to be included as physical media with a new PC (most new PC's just have a restore partition these days, last I checked). Oh, and in my experience XP runs better on low-resource virtualization setups than Windows 7... ESPECIALLY if you avoid SP3! Come on gang, lets not play in to this loaded debate.

--
"It seems that when people become desperate they consult the gods, and when the gods become desperate they tell lies." -

Confirmation Bias? by asdf7890 · 2011-07-31 06:18 · Score: 2

Could there be some confirmation bias that is clouding the true meaning of the collected stats?

It may not just be that the the remaining XP users are less careful/knowledgable/what-ever on average so aren't fully patched with service packs and so forth either by choice or ignorance. A lot of those XP installs have been around a long time, so have had a much longer period (compared to the average Windows 7 or Vista install) in which they could have been exposed to malware.

Many of the installs not properly patched up with security updates could be a symptom of this, rather than a cause, as there are plenty of examples of malware that block some or all updates from being installed (either accidentally due to the damage they do while hacking their way in, or deliberately as a self preservation measure).

My POV by Artem+S.+Tashkinov · 2011-07-31 06:32 · Score: 2

The widespread use of pirated copies of the former and the latter's better security.

I attribute it mainly to the fact that Windows 7 by defaultt at least includes a basic AV software (Windows Defender) whereas Windows XP has none.

And don't mention UAC, please - most people either ignore it and answer YES to all its alerts or disable it altogether right after the installation.

And no, "pirated" versions of Windows XP (most of them are just a VLK version with a valid serial key included) have nothing to do with Windows XP security or lack of it.

This actually suggests it's own solution by goombah99 · 2011-07-31 06:58 · Score: 1

I think we should hang a trillion rootable XP virtual machines on the web. The virus will be so busy infecting all these decoys that it won't be able to find the real machines. We can constantly reset these virtual machines back to clean so they won't be propagating the infection, just chewing up the time of the computers sending out the viruses.

problem solved :-)

--
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.

Re:This actually suggests it's own solution by rts008 · 2011-07-31 08:58 · Score: 1

Yeah, right.
And when your trillion PC botnet decides to phone home and shuts down the whole internet, then what?
Even on the backbone of the net, there is NOT infinite bandwidth.

--
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Re:This actually suggests it's own solution by ravenshrike · 2011-07-31 14:05 · Score: 1

You would set the machines to randomly reboot the VM within a 12 hour period. The infection rate would never get large enough to wipe out a backbone but would tie up a significant mount of malware processing power.

RTFA by jklovanc · 2011-07-31 07:05 · Score: 1

Guess you should read the article.
"XP's share of the infection pie was much larger than Windows 7's, which accounted for only 12% of the malware-plagued machines -- even though the 2009 OS now powers 31% of all Windows PCs."

There are move versions of Win than XP and 7.

Invalid comparison by Rix · 2011-07-31 08:10 · Score: 1

We'll have to look at Win7 once it's been in the wild as long as XP.

THIS by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 08:19 · Score: 0

MS knew exactly what it was doing, and still continues to do, concerning lack of media. The only good thing about Windows 7 is that other than the Home, Premium, Pro versions, there aren't any special Dell/HP-only editions. A valid key should work with the right version.

Anything like GNU Screen? by tepples · 2011-07-31 08:52 · Score: 1

If your mainframe program assumes that any loss of connection is a command to discard your work, then your mainframe program is defective. Does the operating system have a counterpart to GNU Screen that allows resuming a session?

Re:Big deal, blow them out easily with by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 08:58 · Score: 0

Why was this modded down? It makes sense.

M$ guidelines for handling WM_ENDSESSION by tepples · 2011-07-31 09:01 · Score: 1

%APPDATA%\myapp? And now you have to check on startup to see if anything was saved there and let the user know about it

This is exactly the behavior that I expect, and exactly the behavior that applications such as Firefox, Cool Edit Pro, and the like implement. In fact, I seem to remember reading that Microsoft recommends that an application register itself to run once at next login if there happen to be unsaved changes that the user hasn't chosen to save or discard. From Microsoft's guidelines for applications to interact with Restart Manager:

When a GUI application receives a WM_ENDSESSION message, the application should prepare itself to shut down within the specified timeout period. At a minimum, applications should prepare by saving any user data and state information that is needed after a restart. It is recommended that applications periodically save the user data and state.

Yay, more logic that has to be implemented in every program.

So is how to load and save files.

not just counterfeits by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 09:04 · Score: 0

i don't on this box and ill say if you goto SP3 a ton of cool games na dapps get broken and sorry im not paying more, and if that means i get wacked once in a while by some virii i can fix then woopity dooo da

Re:Yep -- no bump by darkonc · 2011-07-31 09:09 · Score: 1

No bump. Microsoft's base business model is fixed costs with variable income. Once their fixed costs are paid off, the rest is almost pure profit that goes to the nearest (often foreign) tax haven.

That sucking sound isn't the economy being inflated -- it's the sound of money being 'renditioned'.

--
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.

Windows should be FREE for cosumers by Danathar · 2011-07-31 09:18 · Score: 1

Microsoft makes the majority of their money from OEM and business. The number of people buying boxed copies of windows is pretty small in proportion. If they would just give it away (or for a small fee) to consumers they would get a lot of good Karma AND cut down on people trying to steal it.

They can EASILY afford it.

It would be a good business decision.

Re:Windows should be FREE for cosumers by smash · 2011-07-31 12:35 · Score: 1

It would be a good business decision.
For whom? Dead virus infected PCs drive PC sales, which drive microsoft OEM licenses. Try convincing the shareholders your idea is a good option, and i'm sure you'll be laughed at all the way to the bank. Microsoft's current model has proven to be in he top 2 most successful software marketing strategies of all time.

--
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Re:Windows should be FREE for cosumers by hairyfeet · 2011-07-31 12:47 · Score: 1

Want to wipe out piracy in the west overnight? here is how you do it...Win 7 Starter for $35, Win 7 Home Premium upgrade for $50! Tada, piracy eliminated overnight. The bitch is I wouldn't be surprised if piracy is part of the MSFT business model. As in TFA pirated machines often get malware, the PC slows down, they find out that Best buy wants OMFG! crazy money to clean the thing and end up buying a new PC. Most folks don't realize the little mom & pop shops like mine do wipe and reinstalls for $50 and one look at how much a Worst Buy wants it is bye bye working PC and hello new laptop.
Of course once they get the fools on the laptop treadmill that's their ass, because those low end laptops last on average about 2 years IF you baby them and because they are nothing but proprietary good fucking luck getting affordable parts. I already tell people if they try to bring in a laptop no hardware fixes, as the price will end up being more than I can get them another POS laptop on sale.
So frankly I seriously wonder if piracy is part of the MSFT business plan here in the states, because they sure as hell do encourage it with the price gouging. The bitch is the pirate version is better like so many other bits of 1s and 0s. You should try "Windows Tiny7" sometime, just to test it I put it on a 1.5GHz with 512Mb of SDRAM and damned if the thing wasn't peppy. It had all the security features like UAC and was using just 256Mb of RAM on the desktop. They really should hire that guy, he makes WinFLP and Embedded look bad.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:Windows should be FREE for cosumers by Runaway1956 · 2011-07-31 17:21 · Score: 1

As long as they are going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade.
—Bill Gates
Yes, piracy is indeed part of Microsoft's business model. Other Microsoft executives have made similar comments, if you care to search them out.

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br

Re:Windows 8 GUI by Billly+Gates · 2011-07-31 10:04 · Score: 1

My first reaction was OH GOD NO.

However, after watching several videos I think it is blown out of proportion. It is not that bad because it is not pervasive. The tiles are only the startup login screen. When you get back to your desktop from lunch you will have the weather, traffic reports, email, stock quotes, etc. Then they will go away when you select the desktop to get work done. The Windows 7 desktop is still there and required for Office and other non tiled apps (all of them). In essense you can use Windows 8 as a regular desktop or as a mobile tablet and the response and reviews from Windows 7 mobile and Mango are very high according to www.amplicate.com and others. Applets are not apps and are treated differently. The tile method may not be bad if Office works for it and you have a tiny 9 inch screen netbook and only running a few apps at a time and want to drag pictures in email and facebook applets.

I prefer this approach rather than take away functionality of gnome-shell and Unity. How is taking away the minimize button functionality making your product better?? As long as both are included I am happy and I do not think it will be like the ribbon where you can't get the menus back.

--
http://saveie6.com/

Most XP machines are in China by Billly+Gates · 2011-07-31 10:15 · Score: 2

According to gstats Windows 7 has already taken the majority of marketshare in the US.Only 1 out of 4 are still running XP. In comparison, most of China is heavily XP based with IE 6 being their default browser with 85% running pirated versions of XP which of course is totally different than a corporate locked down XP machine running IE 8, fully patched, with anti virus software you see in developed nations.

I would say it is not XP is the problem more than unpatched decade old computers in 3rd world countries running outdated browsers from 10 years ago being infected. Windows XP Sp 3 with IE 8 is not too bad fully patched and it is MUCH MORE secure than Tho0rx XP Black edition Sp 1 with IE 6 with no anti virus.

--
http://saveie6.com/

only as old as by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 13:07 · Score: 1

To be fair the OS is only as old as the last patch.

reasons to stay with SP2 over SP3 by societyofrobots · 2011-07-31 13:48 · Score: 3, Interesting

"Vlcek assumed that many of the people running XP SP2, which Microsoft stopped supporting with security patches a year ago, have declined to update to the still-supported SP3 because they are running counterfeits."
I, and many others I know in a forum I frequent, won't upgrade to SP3 as it breaks USB. It's a known bug (for many years) that USB becomes significantly slower in SP3 (it's not known what hardware configurations can avoid the bug). This causes problems with data transfer speeds.

Re:reasons to stay with SP2 over SP3 by Billly+Gates · 2011-07-31 17:47 · Score: 1

I was going to say l33t h0zx3r, who secretly admins your system agrees too.

--
http://saveie6.com/

And Vista comes ... nowhere. by RockDoctor · 2011-07-31 16:21 · Score: 0

No mention of Vista at all.

So, either Vista is an utter paragon of security, or

Vista has a (rapidly) vanishingly small market penetration.

Since it was Vista that moved me to vape my next machine's Windows (not sure what it was, Vista or 7. Who cares? Not me.) install and overwrite it with Ubuntu, I suspect the answer is the lack of market penetration.

--
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"

Windows XP by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 19:23 · Score: 0

Windows XP is already old OS, it stayed so long in use, that the malware multiplied during these 9 years. Windows XP will remain installed on my old pc, because it is stable :)

Vacation Rentals

Re:Windows 8 GUI by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 19:59 · Score: 0

You mean like Microsoft?

New GUI is optional...

guns dont kill people by hesaigo999ca · 2011-08-01 00:59 · Score: 1

people kill people, and people get rootkitted, plain and simple, it is not the computer at fault bu the user using that computer....so windows xp has nothing to do with it....linux can just as easily be rootkitted.

Eventually we'll require up-to-date setups by another_larson · 2011-08-01 02:26 · Score: 1

I predict we'll eventually require some kind of licensing and periodic hardware/software security inspections in order to connect a machine to the internet, and somehow impede traffic from countries that don't undertake similar measures. Yes, it will be a pain, but plenty of countries impose periodic certifications on cars, and this wouldn't be that different. It will also make Stallman's head explode from pure rage, but it will kill the botnets, probably.

Re:Big deal, blow them out easily with by couchslug · 2011-08-01 02:48 · Score: 0

Install Linux and dispose of the problem before it gets hit again and all that work is wasted.

Repaired Windows is still Windows.

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."

Not if you "Security-Harden" it... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-01 06:47 · Score: 0

To "immunize" a Windows system, I effectively use the principles in "layered security" possibles!

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE

I.E./E.G.-> I have done so since 1997-1998 with the most viewed, highly rated guide online for Windows security there really is which came from the fact I also created the 1st guide for securing Windows, highly rated @ NEOWIN (as far back as 1998-2001) here:

http://www.neowin.net/news/apk-a-to-z-internet-speedup--security-text

& from as far back as 1997 -> http://web.archive.org/web/20020205091023/www.ntcompatible.com/article1.shtml which Neowin above picked up on & rated very highly.

That has evolved more currently, into the MOST viewed & highly rated one there is for years now since 2008 online in the 1st URL link above...

Which has well over 500,000++ views online (actually MORE, but 1 site with 75,000 views of it went offline/out-of-business) & it's been made either:

---

1.) An Essential Guide
2.) 5-5 star rated
3.) A "sticky-pinned" thread
4.) Most viewed in the category it's in (usually security)
5.) Got me PAID by winning a contest @ PCPitStop (quite unexpectedly - I was only posting it for the good of all, & yes, "the Lord works in mysterious ways", it even got me PAID -> http://techtalk.pcpitstop.com/2007/09/04/pc-pitstop-winners/ (see January 2008))

---

Across 15-20 or so sites I posted it on back in 2008... & here is the IMPORTANT part, in some sample testimonials to the "layered security" methodology efficacy:

---

SOME QUOTED TESTIMONIALS TO THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SAID LAYERED SECURITY GUIDE I AUTHORED:

http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=672ebdf47af75a0c5b0d9e7278be305f&t=28430&page=2

"I recently, months ago when you finally got this guide done, had authorization to try this on simple work station for kids. My client, who paid me an ungodly amount of money to do this, has been PROBLEM FREE FOR MONTHS! I haven't even had a follow up call which is unusual." - THRONKA, user of my guide @ XTremePcCentral

AND

"APK, thanks for such a great guide. This would, and should, be an inspiration to such security measures. Also, the pc that has "tweaks": IS STILL GOING! NO PROBLEMS!" - THRONKA, user of my guide @ XTremePcCentral

AND

http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=672ebdf47af75a0c5b0d9e7278be305f&t=28430&page=3

"Its 2009 - still trouble free! I was told last week by a co worker who does active directory administration, and he said I was doing overkill. I told him yes, but I just eliminated the half life in windows that you usually get. He said good point. So from 2008 till 2009. No speed decreases, its been to a lan party, moved around in a move, and it still NEVER has had the OS reinstalled besides the fact I imaged the drive over in 2008. Great stuff! My client STILL Hasn't called me back in regards to that one machine to get it locked down for the kid. I am glad it worked and I am sure her wallet is appreciated too now that it works. Speaking of which, I need to call her to see if I can get some leads. APK - I will say it again, the guide is FANTASTIC! Its made my PC experience much easier. Sandboxing was great. Getti

Exactly the point. by Tatarize · 2011-08-01 13:57 · Score: 1

Yeah. Which is exactly the point. Windows XP installs are going to necessarily be older and have been around longer and perhaps have more malware built up over that time. We just have a correlation between XP and Malware. When the real correlation could be length of time OS installed to Malware and XP installed on systems much longer than Windows 7. There's a lot of things that could explain the data that don't necessarily imply one OS is better than the other or that we need to dish out a lot of cash to upgrade. It could just be that the longer you've had it, the more likely you are to have malware.

And TFA says "rootkits" and the only good way to trash some of those is to reinstall anyhow.

--

It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.

Android shows otherwise & MORE by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-02 05:40 · Score: 0

The only reason Linux doesn't get as many virus & such is Security-By-Obscurity (lack of market/user share). On PC's it doesn't the market share Windows does is why it's not attacked, period!

(Roughly - 94% of market is Windows, 5% MacOS X, & Linux picks up MAYBE 1% approximately)

So it's not a worthwhile target for malware makers & the efforts they expend on making malware & having spent on bogus domains to infest others with also...

That is, until it's shown that ANDROID (a Linux variant) is being INFESTED LIKE MAD that is.

E.G.-> Linux is also the favored abused target of phishers &/or spammers via its usage of MySQL & PHP coding also & has 4x the amount of unpatched security vulnerabilities that Windows Server 2008 does & near same with Windows 7!

* No, your "Linux is better" b.s. gets blown away easily in light of those 2 last FACTS!

See below in fact...

APK

P.S.=> In fact? Time to BLOW your "forums 'Illogic-Logic'" spinmaster crap to hell with MORE facts & actual logic + documented facts! Ready? Read on:

---

1st - Linux also doesn't have as high quality drivers or as many because board makers KNOW what is "running the show/market " out there, Windows - so, they cater to it immensely!

2nd - Nor does Linux have as many games, by FAR, either... this is mostly the home market in fact!)

3rd - Not only that. but Linux, in its KERNEL ONLY mind you? Has 3.5x the unpatched security vulnerabilities Windows 7 has (which IS a complete "distro" with all of its parts, not just a kernel only)!

4th - Despite all those "Open 'SORES'" eyes (most of whom couldn't code to SAVE THEIR LIVES mind you) allegedly poring over Linux code, how come it has that many more unpatched bugs than Windows 7 has, hmmm??

Closed source is HARDER for hacker/crackers to attack as well, because you're stuck either disassembling it (especially tough with kernel level debuggers) OR fuzzing it, either is tougher than searching out problems in Linux, which you just load into a compiler & step trace its "Open 'SORES'" code with to find screwups in security... hence it still has more security bugs, AND, they are unpatched (despite all the "Open 'SORES'" eyes poring over it, lol!)

Fact, period!

5th - In fact, Linux's kernel ALONE has 3.5x the # of unpatched bugs the ENTIRE SUITE/ARRAY OF WHAT MICROSOFT GIVES YOU TO DO BUSINESS & DEVELOPMENT WITH!

Proof? Ok:

This data's ALL from a respected source (secunia.com) for known security vulnerabilities unpatched:

---

Vulnerability Report: Microsoft SQL Server 2008: (08/02/2011)

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/21744/

Unpatched 0% (0 of 1 Secunia advisories)

Vulnerability Report: Microsoft Internet Information Services (IIS) 7.x: (08/02/2011)

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/17543/

Unpatched 0% (0 of 6 Secunia advisories)

Vulnerability Report: Microsoft Exchange Server 2010: (08/02/2011)

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/28234/

Unpatched 0% (0 of 0 Secunia advisories)