Confused over validation

[Steve N.]

I just cut the sig.

I don't have the option of doing that.

With OE Quotefix it is done automatically anyway
with a properly formatted sig line.

That's what I understand.

Steve

 

[Nightowl]

kurttrail wrote on Thu, 16 Jun 2005:

I used to mainly top-post when replying to an entire post, though I
inline-posted when replying to different points in the same post. What
turned me to bottom-posting when not inline-posting wasn't some a**hole
bitchin' and whinin' about top-posters, or the traditional values of
bottom-posting, but someone that rationally explained why they
bottom-posted.

I don't like top-posting but my main complaint was about this sticking
quotes under the sig separator. That's not bitchin' and whinin' but for
a rational reason -- because in newsreaders other than OE, the signature
and everything below it is stripped out when the user goes to reply.

People will of course do as they please, but those who've only ever used
OE may not have been aware of this, so I think it's fair to bring it up.

 

[kurttrail]

kurttrail wrote on Thu, 16 Jun 2005:


I don't like top-posting but my main complaint was about this sticking
quotes under the sig separator. That's not bitchin' and whinin' but
for a rational reason -- because in newsreaders other than OE, the
signature and everything below it is stripped out when the user goes
to reply.

I don't think the "quote" that is a part of Crusty's sig is meant to be
repeated in reply to his post.

People will of course do as they please, but those who've only ever
used OE may not have been aware of this, so I think it's fair to
bring it up.

I wasn't replying to you, but to ... et al, the "... et al. wrote:" at
the top of my post.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[Steve N.]

kurttrail wrote on Thu, 16 Jun 2005:




I don't like top-posting but my main complaint was about this sticking
quotes under the sig separator. That's not bitchin' and whinin' but for
a rational reason -- because in newsreaders other than OE, the signature
and everything below it is stripped out when the user goes to reply.

People will of course do as they please, but those who've only ever used
OE may not have been aware of this, so I think it's fair to bring it up.

That's the point, people who use only OE don't see it as a problem and
we're apparently wasting our breath. Oh well...

Steve

 

[... et al.]

In my previous post i made a sidehand remark about top-posting. Try not
to become to concerned with that, that was not my main point, ok.

Go hawk saving your "traditional values" to your church.
Conventions change, and are the rallying cry of conformists.

Sure, for example fewer and fewer people complain about signatures that
exceed the old convention of a two-line maximum (perhaps depending on
the groups you lurk in). In todays internet it is becoming an archaic
convention that more and more *users decide* to disregard. I have no
problems with such changes. (and anyhow in wellbehaving newsclients they
will be auto-snipped on next reply, won't they? ;-/ )

However when one major software-developer singlesidedly implements some
convention-change for all its users, in an open standard, to gain an
unfair advantage over other software-developers, and with the impact it
is bound to have with them distributing their software as part of an
ubiquitous operating system, it is something i do dislike.

Imposed conformism for sure, but from Micros~1's side not mine.

There is nothing stopping Micros~1 from devising a propriaty protocol,
say msthat is using some other then the wellknown port 119,
developing software for it and convince people to use that instead of
Usenet over the open Network News Transport Protcol. Maybe i will use
also that, the same as i am currently using their OS.

LOL! And many people think that bottom posting is ass-kissing the post
you are replying to.

Sure, peoples views and opinions will differ, but the 'top-posting' is a
sidetrack, please don't let it distract you too much. The main
discussion is about the way OE puts quoted test below the users signaure
delimiter. I offered an explanation, my theory, as to why the OE Dev.
Team is doing this.

To each his own. Of course you can always lobby for you countries
government to regulate the USENET posts on the LOCAL ISPs news servers.
How would you like that?

Well, /my/ goverment already does pressure the ISP's to selfsensor and
filter certain kinds of usenet-posts (of the darker kind), or else this
will be legislated in the near future. Hard to argue against that, but
of course then the slippery-slope has begun.

If you wouldn't, then learn to live with the
FACT that how a person posts their posts is their decision, and other
than trying to rationally explain why you believe bottom-posting is
better for you than top-posting, bitching about it will accomplish
nothing.

Are you still on about the top-posting thingy? I was writing about the
fact that i don't understand why intelligent people with open eyes use
software that put quoted text below the sig-delimiter.

I used to mainly top-post when replying to an entire post, though I
inline-posted when replying to different points in the same post. What
turned me to bottom-posting when not inline-posting wasn't some a**hole
bitchin' and whinin' about top-posters, or the traditional values of
bottom-posting, but someone that rationally explained why they
bottom-posted.

[I'm not normally a bottom-, nor a top-poser. I'm an inline-type poster]
You are a smart person, i'm surprised you had to have someone explaining
it to you. For me, it's simply logical, that's why i choose to write
followups the way i do. But my last post wasn't about top vs. bottom, i
don't understand why you keep on about that.

In the end, there is really nothing you can do about how other people
post, other than lobbying your government to censor the USENET on your
country's ISP nntp servers, and bitchin' about only makes you look like
a netiquette nagger.

I don't know if your pet-peeve, the one that you are always bitchin'
about, the activation-retinascanning-validating-hoopjumping circus, if
you think your bitching about it in here will convince the captain of
the ship, the MS Jaggernaut, to make any coursechanges? (Don't stop
bithin' about it on my acount.)

Me, i didn't try to make anyone change their way of posting. Again, i
was offering an explanation as to why i think OE was *designed* to
enforce its users posts to be the way they are (and then i expressed my
bewildement as to how many peoples mind works).

In both, the hoopjumping and quote-below-sig.delimiter, cases Micros~1
is doing what they do to further their own interests, against end-users
and/or competing software-developers, because they can. If i would
petition /my/ goverment regarding this, it would be to legislate
anti-trust laws and then to have them be enfored. Not that i think /my/
goverment have enough weight to make large anational megacorps do
anything, them days are gone.

 

[... et al.]

I tried Thunderbird and, frankly, it sucks.

To tell you a secret, i'm not too thrilled about Thunderbird myself.

I've been meaning to try out Gravity, Agent, xNews and some others, and
hopefully get comfy with one of them. For varios reasons i've managed to
keep putting it off.

But fortunately at least there exists many alternatives one can choose
between. It's not like one must use OE if one doesn't like Thunderbird.

 

[Alias]

To tell you a secret, i'm not too thrilled about Thunderbird myself.

I've been meaning to try out Gravity, Agent, xNews and some others, and
hopefully get comfy with one of them. For varios reasons i've managed to
keep putting it off.

But fortunately at least there exists many alternatives one can choose
between. It's not like one must use OE if one doesn't like Thunderbird.

I've tried them all and only Calypso -- that isn't free anymore -- comes
close to OE and it doesn't have newsgroups. I hate having separate Inboxes
for my ten email accounts that I access with OE like Thunderbird and others
do.

Alias

 

[kurttrail]

To tell you a secret, i'm not too thrilled about Thunderbird myself.

I've been meaning to try out Gravity, Agent, xNews and some others,
and hopefully get comfy with one of them. For varios reasons i've
managed to keep putting it off.

But fortunately at least there exists many alternatives one can choose
between. It's not like one must use OE if one doesn't like
Thunderbird.

Agent is a very good newsreader for downloading from binary newsgroups.
And OE with some addins, like OE quotefix is one of the best text-based
newsreaders I've ever tried.

You don't agree, and no one is forcing you to use it.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[kurttrail]

In my previous post i made a sidehand remark about top-posting. Try
not to become to concerned with that, that was not my main point, ok.

Just trying to nip a top/bottom post skirmish in the bud.

Sure, for example fewer and fewer people complain about signatures
that exceed the old convention of a two-line maximum (perhaps
depending on the groups you lurk in). In todays internet it is
becoming an archaic convention that more and more *users decide* to
disregard. I have no problems with such changes. (and anyhow in
wellbehaving newsclients they will be auto-snipped on next reply,
won't they? ;-/ )

Assuming of course the signiture is conventionally formatted.

However when one major software-developer singlesidedly implements
some convention-change for all its users, in an open standard, to
gain an unfair advantage over other software-developers, and with the
impact it is bound to have with them distributing their software as
part of an ubiquitous operating system, it is something i do dislike.

LOL! I agree.

Imposed conformism for sure, but from Micros~1's side not mine.

Quite frankly, OE is so much of an afterthought for MS. It always has
been. And as time goes on it is much more so, to the point of MS doing
nothing with it, while updating IE to version 7.

There is nothing stopping Micros~1 from devising a propriaty protocol,
say msthat is using some other then the wellknown port 119,
developing software for it and convince people to use that instead of
Usenet over the open Network News Transport Protcol. Maybe i will use
also that, the same as i am currently using their OS.

Yes, there is nothing stopping MS, but nobody is forcing you to read
their groups, or even replying to people that use OE. I remember back
in the mid-90s where many people wouldn't respond to people posting
through AOL. You could do the same with people that use OE.

Sure, peoples views and opinions will differ, but the 'top-posting'
is a sidetrack, please don't let it distract you too much. The main
discussion is about the way OE puts quoted test below the users
signaure delimiter. I offered an explanation, my theory, as to why
the OE Dev. Team is doing this.

Quite frankly, laziness. And many of the newsreaders I've tried, allow
the user to set it up to top-post too.

Well, /my/ goverment already does pressure the ISP's to selfsensor and
filter certain kinds of usenet-posts (of the darker kind), or else
this will be legislated in the near future. Hard to argue against
that, but of course then the slippery-slope has begun.

Free speech is no longer free when it is limited in any way. Once
limited, it is Limited Speech.

Are you still on about the top-posting thingy? I was writing about the
fact that i don't understand why intelligent people with open eyes use
software that put quoted text below the sig-delimiter.

Either way top-posting or quoted text below the sig-delimiter, bitchin'
about it does nothing.

People will use what they want, whether you understand it or not.

I used to mainly top-post when replying to an entire post, though I
inline-posted when replying to different points in the same post.
What turned me to bottom-posting when not inline-posting wasn't some
a**hole bitchin' and whinin' about top-posters, or the traditional
values of bottom-posting, but someone that rationally explained why
they bottom-posted.

[I'm not normally a bottom-, nor a top-poser. I'm an inline-type
poster] You are a smart person, i'm surprised you had to have someone
explaining it to you.

Until then, I felt my reasons for top-posting made more sense for me.
Nobody is right all the time, and one must be at the very least remain
open to re-examining one's beliefs.

For me, it's simply logical, that's why i
choose to write followups the way i do. But my last post wasn't about
top vs. bottom, i don't understand why you keep on about that.

You don't understand, or you don't want to. Until you walk a mile in
another man's moccasins you can't imagine the smell.

I don't know if your pet-peeve, the one that you are always bitchin'
about, the activation-retinascanning-validating-hoopjumping circus, if
you think your bitching about it in here will convince the captain of
the ship, the MS Jaggernaut, to make any coursechanges? (Don't stop
bithin' about it on my acount.)

LOL! Just trying to educate my fellow consumers about their rights to
their copy of software. MS's is about as willing to listen to reason as
George W. Bush. Not Very Likely.

Me, i didn't try to make anyone change their way of posting.

No, you were subtely trying to put down those that use OE. And most of
those that advocate others to use OE, is to ween them off the horrible
web interface to these MSNEWS groups

Again, i
was offering an explanation as to why i think OE was *designed* to
enforce its users posts to be the way they are (and then i expressed
my bewildement as to how many peoples mind works).
LOL!

In both, the hoopjumping and quote-below-sig.delimiter, cases Micros~1
is doing what they do to further their own interests, against
end-users and/or competing software-developers, because they can. If
i would petition /my/ goverment regarding this, it would be to
legislate anti-trust laws and then to have them be enfored. Not that
i think /my/ goverment have enough weight to make large anational
megacorps do anything, them days are gone.

With both the US and the EU both ending up sucking MicroDick after
trying to give it a spanking, the only country that seems to get MS to
jump is China, so you might look into moving there.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[Incognitus]

Are you still on about the top-posting thingy? I was writing about the
fact that i don't understand why intelligent people with open eyes use
software that put quoted text below the sig-delimiter.

If they were as intelligent as you give them credit for they would use the
insert signature option and insert the signature into the correct place,
there is that option in OE, only the lazy/clueless ignore it.

 

[SP Goodman]

Hi Doug,

A fairly new Matrox 40GB went down overnight with a quite-validated and
activated XP Pro license onboard. While waiting for the RMA hard drive to
arrive (Monday please!), I threw an old 6GB WD in to hold things up in the
meantime, and did a scratch install on it.

I encountered and succeeded at activation and verification back in January,
when I first installed this legit copy. It passes all the visual
inspections and other tests posted online, and the telephone number I've
forgotten altogether since I never thought I'd need it. This copy has been
scratch installed on the same machine three times since, the last time in
March. I wiped the drive again, and went through the laborious process of
installing XP Pro on a ATA-33 drive (reminded me of my OS/2 install days).
Same non-result, with the 'verification' site saying that "Microsoft never
issued this key". Further attempts failed to issue that error message,
instead just saying that the validation failed. The routine on the server
seemed to think this was an nVidia OEM copy of XP SP2, which is most
certainly not the case, though it is an OEM disc.

I understand the OEM licenses were somehow prevented en masse via a few
messages on the newsgroup, but this was supposed to have happened March 1 or
so, and I did the last scratch install of this (legit) disc in the middle of
March. I know things take a little while to hit the UK sometimes, but I got
the impression that something's gone wrong with the program handling the
validation. Is there a number I can call to get this taken care of? Thanks
in advance.

Stephen Goodman
Cartoons about DVDs and Stuff
http://www.earthlight.net/HiddenTrack



I'm seeing the same thing you are. However, this is "normal". The ActiveX
control is already installed on your computer. This is still a work in
progress.

--
Doug Knox, MS-MVP Windows Media Center\Windows Powered Smart
Display\Security
Win 95/98/Me/XP Tweaks and Fixes
http://www.dougknox.com

 

[BrianC]

That version is tied to the motherboard. I know microsoft disabled
activation for those licenses in early March. Call them and prove that
you're a legitimate user.

 

[Greg Ro]

Hi Doug,

A fairly new Matrox 40GB went down overnight with a quite-validated and
activated XP Pro license onboard. While waiting for the RMA hard drive to
arrive (Monday please!), I threw an old 6GB WD in to hold things up in the
meantime, and did a scratch install on it.

I encountered and succeeded at activation and verification back in January,
when I first installed this legit copy. It passes all the visual
inspections and other tests posted online, and the telephone number I've
forgotten altogether since I never thought I'd need it. This copy has been
scratch installed on the same machine three times since, the last time in
March. I wiped the drive again, and went through the laborious process of
installing XP Pro on a ATA-33 drive (reminded me of my OS/2 install days).
Same non-result, with the 'verification' site saying that "Microsoft never
issued this key". Further attempts failed to issue that error message,
instead just saying that the validation failed. The routine on the server
seemed to think this was an nVidia OEM copy of XP SP2, which is most
certainly not the case, though it is an OEM disc.

I understand the OEM licenses were somehow prevented en masse via a few
messages on the newsgroup, but this was supposed to have happened March 1 or
so, and I did the last scratch install of this (legit) disc in the middle of
March. I know things take a little while to hit the UK sometimes, but I got
the impression that something's gone wrong with the program handling the
validation. Is there a number I can call to get this taken care of? Thanks
in advance.

Stephen Goodman
Cartoons about DVDs and Stuff
http://www.earthlight.net/HiddenTrack



I'm seeing the same thing you are. However, this is "normal". The ActiveX
control is already installed on your computer. This is still a work in
progress.

SP Goodman
1st question
Did you use key on your machine or from a sticker?

2nd question
What version of xp did you install xp? xpsp1? xpsp2?

If you did not install xp sp2 yet and your 30 days are almost up.
I would install xpsp2 cd update and then try to activate.


Greg Ro

 

[Greg Ro]

Why should it be? If they discover a widely used pirated registration after
you've used the updates one they should just let you continue to get the
updates?
If the Police discover you using the car you use but stole months ago they
should just let you continue using it because you'd started to use it.?
That'd work and be reasonable too?

That beside the point, it what Microsoft had said, Once your
validate you won't have to do it again. I think Microsoft may have
to make an xpi for firefox and mozilla as well.


Greg Ro

 

[SP Goodman]

SP Goodman
1st question
Did you use key on your machine or from a sticker?

Sticker, because my PC undergoes a good deal of testing and reinstallation.
Lucky too, given the first motherboard/CPU burnout a month after getting it!

2nd question
What version of xp did you install xp? xpsp1? xpsp2?

It's an SP2 disc.

 

[Greg Ro]

Sticker, because my PC undergoes a good deal of testing and reinstallation.
Lucky too, given the first motherboard/CPU burnout a month after getting it!

There is the problem. It the motherboard. Without admitting it,
Microsoft consider motherboard a new computer. I don't know of any
work arounds. You could possible buy an oem copy of the same version
of windows you have and change the key to that version.

if you original have xp,xp sp1, xp sp1a you could get xp sp2 retail
upgrade. If you have xpsp2 oem, you just need to get another xpsp2
oem and change the key. If you have the full version retail of
xpsp2. I would change the key to that and call in and reactivate
your system. Full Retail you are allowed to transfer to a new
machine.

Greg Ro

 

[SP Goodman]

There is the problem. It the motherboard. Without admitting it,
Microsoft consider motherboard a new computer. I don't know of any
work arounds. You could possible buy an oem copy of the same version
of windows you have and change the key to that version.

Since we live in the real world, one where computer components fail, I think
I'll resist following the silly logic of such policy, which wants to say
that I should throw out the CD with the motherboard, just so I can buy
another one.

I don't believe this obviously failure-prone policy will last. On one level
Microsoft not only accepted, validated and verified that my S/N was a valid
one, and now they've decided that it's not. It certainly would appear that
someone at MS is determined to fulfill the paranoid fantasies that some
vocal Linux and Mac users have been fostering for ages.

The workaround has already been discovered for the Windows Update situation,
I understand. Funny how the folks who think they're obeying the law seem to
be punished on this one. I've gotten an email from an MS person giving me
the phone number to call in the UK so we'll see what happens.

if you original have xp,xp sp1, xp sp1a you could get xp sp2 retail
upgrade.

This is an SP2 full-install. I don't buy upgrade discs anymore given the
kind of rebuilding etc. I do - The last time I had to do that was with
98/98se, and had to keep both CDs on-hand for a rebuild.

If you have xpsp2 oem, you just need to get another xpsp2
oem and change the key. If you have the full version retail of
xpsp2. I would change the key to that and call in and reactivate
your system. Full Retail you are allowed to transfer to a new
machine.

Until some accountant at MS comes up with a new way to get people to buy
more copies, huh? Perhaps it's the Scot in me, but I don't like throwing
money away on something I already own the right to use as I please, within
the law. There's not a whit of technical justification behind it, unless
someone can come up with proof that OEM full versions are all pirated or
something. Somehow I don't think Dell and HP would enjoy that a bit.