Why My Computer was Changed to Computer in Vista

[Alias]

Being a side show freak is obviously your choice. No one forced you to
come into this Vista ng and portray yourself as you have.
It's your fault.
It's who you are.
Live with it!
Frank

Yep, a one trick pony.

Alias

 

[Frank]

Yep, a one trick pony.

Alias

LOL...you're one sick side show freak.
You're only here for entertainment purposes.
Live with it!
Frank

 

[Lang Murphy]

Try not doing what you're told when asked to activate or become genuine by
Big Brother MS and see how long it's "your" computer.

Alias

Personally, I have no issue with activation or attaining "genuine." No
problem whatsoever. And I will continue to disagree with your observation
that it's not "my" computer. It's "my" computer until you come over to my
house and remove it. Then it's "your" computer.

Lang

 

[Alias]

Personally, I have no issue with activation or attaining "genuine." No
problem whatsoever.

A lot of people like you have been brainwashed to think that bending
over for Microsoft is "normal".

And I will continue to disagree with your
observation that it's not "my" computer. It's "my" computer until you
come over to my house and remove it. Then it's "your" computer.

Lang

It's not your computer as long as you have Vista installed on it.
Whether you disagree or not is not relevant.

Alias

 

[Jeff]

It's not your computer as long as you have Vista installed on it. Whether
you disagree or not is not relevant.

Alias

I paid for all the parts and built the computer myself and installed vista
on it. Why isn't it mine anymore?

I still have the receipts showing its mine???

Jeff

 

[Frank]

I paid for all the parts and built the computer myself and installed
vista on it. Why isn't it mine anymore?

I still have the receipts showing its mine???

Jeff

Jeff, pay no attention to this guy who can't use his real name, doesn't
have Vista (can't afford it!) and is an admitted linux loser troll.
He's stuck-on-stupid!
Frank

 

[cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)]

Earlier, someone said...

AMEN!

Yes, we know we don't "own" Windows when we "buy" it.

Now will MS please remember they don't own the PC (not even the
partition) that we install thier OS to?


It seems as if these devs work on the basis that the entire PC (or at
least the collected OS space of compatible partitions and volumes) is
theirs to stomp all over, and eveything we want to do is squashed into
a little "My.." ghetto in one corner. IOW, they use "My.." to
indicate those rare things that aren't "thiers", but "ours".

So we have IE giving itself X% of all of C: for its web cache, SR
grabbing Y% of C: space for its use (and in ME and XP, stomping on
every volume and HD it can see), Recycled grabbing Z%, etc.

The PC is for OUR stuff. The OS is a guest of the system, and should
stay the hell out of partitions that are not marked as being for its
use. Apps are also guests, and should "behave", i.e. not take over
the OS startup axis, throw other apps off file assiociations, and call
home for updates etc. without asking.


Then again, marketers will say the "My..." thing had nothing to do
with any of that; like all marketing BS, it's all about manipulating
perceptions. And look at all the things that use the "My..." monicker
since MS "invented" it? Er... notice how most of those things are
crap, i.e. poison-candy that's aiming for the gullible?

Well, here's the "perception" that "My.." thing creates; I perceive
myself being talked down to, and it's damn irritating.


On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:51:03 -0600, "NotMe"

....was noting how trivial hardware changes that would not awaken XP's
product activation, can trigger Vista's DoS payload:

It doesn't even take that.
I have 4 sticks of RAM, 2x512MB and 2x256MB for a total of 1.5GB
I has assumed that since the banks for RAM were divided into 2 sets of 2,
that putting matched pairs into each bank would make dual channel work.
To make dual channel work, you have to put the matching sticks in the same
slot IN EACH BANK.
I rearranged the 2 of the 4 sticks to make dual channel work.

Note this...

No other hardware was changed/enabled/disabled.

Vista Ultimate required a phone call for reactivation.

IMHO, that is pushing the envelope WAY too far!

Quite - we are told that Vista uses "the same' activation models and
DoS payload triggers as XP did, and yet I am constantly seeing posts
like this that indicate Vista's a trigger-happy nutcase in comparison.

No-one has ever followed this up or spotlighted it; it seems that
compared to when XP introduced product activation, there's no
"watchdog" awareness left. We're told it's the same as XP, we no
longer have Licenturion's XP Info to watch what is going on, and we
continue to snooze when posters like NotMe sound the alarm.

MS has gotten so paranoid about piracy that their oppressive tactics will
backfire and cost them way more than having some people install on several
machines.

With every case, one has to be clear on whether this is product
activation that is at work, or Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA).

Yes, they are both anti-piracy technologies, but they have different
objectives and AFAIK don't overlap.

Product Activation binds a license to a particular PC, to prevent it
being used on more than one PC.

Genuine Advantage is a way to detect known stolen keys (typically
VLKs) on an ongoing basis - i.e. instead of (say) having SPs refuse to
install on keys that were known to have been stolen at the time the SP
was released, WGA allows newly-discovered stolen keys to be detected
on running PCs, and have this anomaly highlighted on them.

The ostensible reason is to block medium-to-large scale counterfeiting
and piracy, in the case of a pirate system builder who gets a
freshly-stolen key and then quickly builds and sells a bunch of PCs
with it. This way, when the key is discovered to be bad (after the
PCs are already shipped), the users of those PCs can be alerted, and
the trail of evidence can be followed back to the rogue builder.

-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

Tip Of The Day:
To disable the 'Tip of the Day' feature...

 

[Alias]

I paid for all the parts and built the computer myself and installed
vista on it. Why isn't it mine anymore?

I still have the receipts showing its mine???

Jeff

Because you have Vista installed, you use it at MS' pleasure, not yours.
Your receipt for your copy of Vista means squat to WPA and all of WGA's
flavors, as it does to all the activation seats in India. Now, if you
should nuke Vista and go for an Open Source OS, yes, you would have
regained control of your computer.

Alias

 

[Alias]

Jeff, pay no attention to this guy who can't use his real name,

How do we know your name is Frank?

doesn't
have Vista
True.

(can't afford it!)

A baldfaced lie.

and is an admitted linux loser troll.
False.

He's stuck-on-stupid!
Frank

Look who's talking, Mr Stupid Himself!

Alias

 

[Jeff]

Because you have Vista installed, you use it at MS' pleasure, not yours.
Your receipt for your copy of Vista means squat to WPA and all of WGA's
flavors, as it does to all the activation seats in India. Now, if you
should nuke Vista and go for an Open Source OS, yes, you would have
regained control of your computer.

Alias

Use it at MS's pleasure? I use it whenever I want... Have never been told
by anyone I can't....

Regain control of my computer? I never lost it....

Jeff

 

[Frank]

Because you have Vista installed, you use it at MS' pleasure, not yours.

You have no idea what you're talking about you linux loser troll.
Stop lying!

Your receipt for your copy of Vista means squat to WPA and all of WGA's
flavors, as it does to all the activation seats in India.

More ignorant lies from our resident side show creep.

Now, if you should nuke Vista and go for an Open Source OS, yes, you
would have

regained control of your computer.

That's gotta be the most egregiously incorrect statement you've made in
the last 5 seconds.
I'd hardly call installing a toy os as having control over anything.
But seeing as how you don't have nor can you afford Vista...nor do you
know anything about Vista from an actual hands on users experience...who
then really cares about the uninformed opinion of a linux loser troll?
Frank

 

[Stephan Rose]

Use it at MS's pleasure? I use it whenever I want... Have never been told
by anyone I can't....

Regain control of my computer? I never lost it....

Actually you never had it and still don't have it. Vista can, at its
discretion, choose to deactivate itself and therefore the use of your
system if it feels your hardware has changed and require reactivation. I
mean ok...you get 3 days...but that's about it.

And the *only* thing you can do at that point is call MS...

You call that control over your computer?

May not have happened to you yet, but there are plenty people who have had
it happen from something as little as a driver update.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[Jeff]

Actually you never had it and still don't have it. Vista can, at its
discretion, choose to deactivate itself and therefore the use of your
system if it feels your hardware has changed and require reactivation. I
mean ok...you get 3 days...but that's about it.

And the *only* thing you can do at that point is call MS...

You call that control over your computer?

May not have happened to you yet, but there are plenty people who have had
it happen from something as little as a driver update.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

I have only had to activate my system one time. Since then I have done a
number of driver updates, added memory and another HD and still haven't had
to "reactivate"....


Jeff

 

[Stephan Rose]

I have only had to activate my system one time. Since then I have done a
number of driver updates, added memory and another HD and still haven't had
to "reactivate"....

Then you are one of the lucky ones. =)

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[Stephan Rose]

Then you are one of the lucky ones. =)

Though that still does not change the fact that Vista still has the
ability and you have absolutely no control over it.


--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[Frank]

Though that still does not change the fact that Vista still has the
ability and you have absolutely no control over it.

That is simply an incorrect and misleading statement. Absolute control
implies that you have no recourse in reactivating...which we all know is
not true. Also, I note that you linux boys like to make a mountain out
of a mole hill. I guess it makes you guys feel good, huh?
How many legal Vista installs have deactivated and not reactivated? Got
a number? How many complaints about activation have we seen in this ng?
Under a couple of dozen if that many?
I know you linux boys hate MS and are only in this ng to spread your
hate venom...guess it makes you feel good about your choices.
In the end though, your negative postings about MS & Vista are
well...meaningless in the over all scheme of things.
Frank

 

[Stephan Rose]

That is simply an incorrect and misleading statement. Absolute control
implies that you have no recourse in reactivating...which we all know is
not true. Also, I note that you linux boys like to make a mountain out
of a mole hill. I guess it makes you guys feel good, huh?
How many legal Vista installs have deactivated and not reactivated? Got
a number? How many complaints about activation have we seen in this ng?
Under a couple of dozen if that many?
I know you linux boys hate MS and are only in this ng to spread your
hate venom...guess it makes you feel good about your choices.
In the end though, your negative postings about MS & Vista are
well...meaningless in the over all scheme of things.

Actually I have helped some users with issues. Matter of fact, helped
someone today deal with Vista's inability to correctly work with his
keyboard.

And actually, reactivating still is no control because I need to call
someone and convince them that my install is legal. That person is then
ultimately who is in control by then reactivating my system.

Now it might be that you actually like dealing with problems like that. I
personally don't and won't. =)

And no, I don't have numbers. Do you? If you do, please be so kind as to
post them. =)

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)]

Alias said:

I paid for all the parts and built the computer myself and installed vista
on it. Why isn't it mine anymore?

By design, the NT family of OSs leverage control by "the
administrator" over that of the user at the keyboard.

This is appropriate for NT's original target market, which was
professionally-administered business use. In that context, the user's
time has been bought, and the user's PC is also owned by the business.
The system administrator is the technical overseer that represents the
businesses' interests, and who is expected to override the user at the
keyboard, even from a different system over the network.

Hence NT's "security", which largely goes about testing that entities
are who they claim to be, and assigning levels of control accordingly.
As the user at the keyboard, you are merely one of these entities, and
not the boss one, either.

Because the Internet is built from the raw materials of networking,
Windows treats it as just another network. So now you have all of
these facilities designed to let "the boss" push you around via an
internal, professionally-administered network, waving around at the
Internet for anyone to bluff their way in as "administrator".

Then this whole mess was sold into consumer space as XP, and not too
long after, consumerland got the first taste of pure network worms
like Lovesan and Sasser that carved though the world in a matter of
minutes. Servers had already felt that whip with an ancient UNIX PoC
(Morris worm), and more recently Nimda, Code Red and especially (in
terms of method and speed) SQL Slammer.

Lovesan and Sasser didn't jump through authentication hoops to get in,
as OpaServ does through file shares; they simply attacked flaws in
networking surfaces that should never have been facing the Intrenet in
the first place. The core problem is that NT, unlike Win9x, was not a
user's OS with networking stuck on top; it's designed to be a network
chew-toy (sorry, "client") from the ground up.


Right now, 95% of spam is sent not through mail servers, but via
spambots. Most of the systems that host spam bots are Windows PCs.
Various surveys show a high % of Windows PCs are infected with
software unwanted by the user, and that's before we get to commercial
malware that is built in, in the form of DRM, WPA, etc.

Windows is made by a US company under US law, and the US derives a
fair bit of revenue from the entertainment industry, which is a net
inflow from the rest of the world. So what those industries lobby
for, they generally get, and that includes a new level of intrusion
into what you thought was "your" computer.

DRM's to be built into the hardware of modern PCs, as logic shrinkage
allows more logic to be built into devices that operate in parallel
with your processor. We've already caught one of the biggest media
pimps dropping rootkits from "audio CDs" - about as severe a risk
escalation as one could possibly make - and they're still around,
doing what they usually do. The will to curb this stuff is not there.


But I think what Alias is referring to in particular, is that
Microsoft retains ownership of the software that you pay to use.

That in itself, I don't have a problem with; it is, after all, nothing
new. What is new, is that one is forced into an ongoing dependence
with such software vendors, partly fostered by the need to keep fixing
defects in their code - defects that are largely exposed to the
outside world as a result of inappropriate design.

This is a perverse loop; the more unsafe a product is, the more you
have to leave yourself open to the vendor to fix it, and the more that
vendor has you in a head-lock.

Therefore, my main point of agreement with Alias is that when you've
paid for Windows, you aren't free of ongoing dependence on MS, even if
you never upgrade your OS. You'll have to leave your OS open for
patches, and these will include WGA and DRM updates that are,
essentially, hostile to you; they leverage other entities' interests
over yours, right there on "your" computer.

Even if you stay offline and avoid these updates, you still have the
product activation payload built into your OS. This facility is
purely hostile to you; it exists for the sole purpose of preventing
you from using "your" computer, should its logic determine you are
contravening MS's license terms.

You may have other practical obstacles in the way of rebuilding "your"
computer. If you bought it with MS Office 2007 installed, you
probably didn't get installation disks for that; in fact, if you
bought a "big brand" PC, you may not even have OS installation disks.
So if your HD's contents are lost, you'd have to go back and beg your
OEM for assistance, or re-purchase the software you thought you'd at
least owned the right to use - and this time, because you are buying
retail rather than OEM - you'll pay roughly double for it.

So, why haven't Apple or Linux taken this opportunity to blow MS away?

Partly because there are real technical reasons why it's so hard to
write code that doesn't need patching. We've got used to a very
"lively" Internet, where web sites work thier magic by automating our
web browsers. As long as you allow arbitrary web sites (and whatever
banner ads are hosted there, and whatever links are thrown up by
search engines, etc.) to automate your PC, you're in trouble, no
matter what OS you use.

So Linux and Apple also have their code defects and the need to keep
patching software they thought was "finished". The more market share
these get, the less difference you will see between these and Windows,
in terms of malware attack. Holes are there; malware, not yet.

The other factor is that it takes resources to make software of this
complexity. You can get these resources if a large number of users
pay for it, as is the case of Windows, or if a smaller number of
people pay far too much for it, as is the case with Apple.

If you think MS drives a hard bargain as a dominant OS vendor, wait
until you feel Apple on your back; you'd be forced to buy "their"
computer, even when it's built on the back of the generic PC platform
that's benefitted from the work of a larger market.

Linux's approach to the resource problem is different; a large
contribution is from folks designing and coding the bits they are most
interested in. The users are themselves part of this process, which
works best when user and volunteer developer are similar, if not the
same people. If you "just want it to work", you have a problem; if
what you want written is not what the tech volunteer are interested in
writing, then it won't happen, and that's only natural.

------------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

The rights you save may be your own

 

[Frank]

And actually, reactivating still is no control because I need to call
someone and convince them that my install is legal. That person is then
ultimately who is in control by then reactivating my system.

That's not true at all. If the install you have is legal, they have no
recourse but to activate. Again, how many legal installs have been
denied activation or reactivation?
Noe...zero...zip...nada.

Now it might be that you actually like dealing with problems like that. I
personally don't and won't. =)

Well, I like probably 99.999% of all the legal installs don't have any
problems at all concerning activation/reactivation.
It's a none issue.
I do however, believe you linux boys like trying to make a mountain out
of a mole hill.
It's not working!

And no, I don't have numbers. Do you? If you do, please be so kind as to
post them. =)

I've only seen the postings concerning activation/reactivate and so far,
they're all apparently been successful.
Frank

 

[Stephan Rose]

By design, the NT family of OSs leverage control by "the
administrator" over that of the user at the keyboard.

This is appropriate for NT's original target market, which was
professionally-administered business use. In that context, the user's
time has been bought, and the user's PC is also owned by the business.
The system administrator is the technical overseer that represents the
businesses' interests, and who is expected to override the user at the
keyboard, even from a different system over the network.

Hence NT's "security", which largely goes about testing that entities
are who they claim to be, and assigning levels of control accordingly.
As the user at the keyboard, you are merely one of these entities, and
not the boss one, either.

Because the Internet is built from the raw materials of networking,
Windows treats it as just another network. So now you have all of
these facilities designed to let "the boss" push you around via an
internal, professionally-administered network, waving around at the
Internet for anyone to bluff their way in as "administrator".

Then this whole mess was sold into consumer space as XP, and not too
long after, consumerland got the first taste of pure network worms
like Lovesan and Sasser that carved though the world in a matter of
minutes. Servers had already felt that whip with an ancient UNIX PoC
(Morris worm), and more recently Nimda, Code Red and especially (in
terms of method and speed) SQL Slammer.

Lovesan and Sasser didn't jump through authentication hoops to get in,
as OpaServ does through file shares; they simply attacked flaws in
networking surfaces that should never have been facing the Intrenet in
the first place. The core problem is that NT, unlike Win9x, was not a
user's OS with networking stuck on top; it's designed to be a network
chew-toy (sorry, "client") from the ground up.


Right now, 95% of spam is sent not through mail servers, but via
spambots. Most of the systems that host spam bots are Windows PCs.
Various surveys show a high % of Windows PCs are infected with
software unwanted by the user, and that's before we get to commercial
malware that is built in, in the form of DRM, WPA, etc.

Windows is made by a US company under US law, and the US derives a
fair bit of revenue from the entertainment industry, which is a net
inflow from the rest of the world. So what those industries lobby
for, they generally get, and that includes a new level of intrusion
into what you thought was "your" computer.

DRM's to be built into the hardware of modern PCs, as logic shrinkage
allows more logic to be built into devices that operate in parallel
with your processor. We've already caught one of the biggest media
pimps dropping rootkits from "audio CDs" - about as severe a risk
escalation as one could possibly make - and they're still around,
doing what they usually do. The will to curb this stuff is not there.


But I think what Alias is referring to in particular, is that
Microsoft retains ownership of the software that you pay to use.

That in itself, I don't have a problem with; it is, after all, nothing
new. What is new, is that one is forced into an ongoing dependence
with such software vendors, partly fostered by the need to keep fixing
defects in their code - defects that are largely exposed to the
outside world as a result of inappropriate design.

This is a perverse loop; the more unsafe a product is, the more you
have to leave yourself open to the vendor to fix it, and the more that
vendor has you in a head-lock.

Therefore, my main point of agreement with Alias is that when you've
paid for Windows, you aren't free of ongoing dependence on MS, even if
you never upgrade your OS. You'll have to leave your OS open for
patches, and these will include WGA and DRM updates that are,
essentially, hostile to you; they leverage other entities' interests
over yours, right there on "your" computer.

Even if you stay offline and avoid these updates, you still have the
product activation payload built into your OS. This facility is
purely hostile to you; it exists for the sole purpose of preventing
you from using "your" computer, should its logic determine you are
contravening MS's license terms.

You may have other practical obstacles in the way of rebuilding "your"
computer. If you bought it with MS Office 2007 installed, you
probably didn't get installation disks for that; in fact, if you
bought a "big brand" PC, you may not even have OS installation disks.
So if your HD's contents are lost, you'd have to go back and beg your
OEM for assistance, or re-purchase the software you thought you'd at
least owned the right to use - and this time, because you are buying
retail rather than OEM - you'll pay roughly double for it.

So, why haven't Apple or Linux taken this opportunity to blow MS away?

Well honestly I don't think Apple is the answer.

Microsoft is a monoculture with software lock-in.
Apple is a monoculture with software and hardware lock-in.

Not really an improvement if you ask me.

From a security and malware standpoint, I actually think Linux has a
significant advantage over both without even taking OS design into
consideration.

It's one of the #1 things some new people complain about:

300+ distributions.

Now of course that number is a little misleading. Many "distributions" are
simply major distributions just pre-configured in a different way for a
different purpose.

Example:

Ubuntu
Kubuntu
Edubuntu
Xubuntu
Ubuntu-Studio
Ubuntu-Server

And a few more...

They are all essentially the identical OS, but each is its own
distribution just because it comes configured for a different purpose.
However, it is not a mono-culture and that is where its true security
strength lies.

Try to write malware that can target all of just those ubuntu
distributions. I'm not even taking the other 290+ distributions in
existance into account. Try to just target those 6 all at once as a
malware writer.

Chances of that occuring are low. It'd have to be an exploit that is
common to all 6, which pretty much mostly means it'd have to be a kernel
vulnerability.

Other than that, if it's a desktop vulnerability then the server is
already invulnerable. It has no desktop.

Now the next question is...WHICH desktop vulnerability is it?

Is it a Gnome vulnerability? Then only Ubuntu, Ubuntu-Studio, Edubuntu are
affected.

Is it a KDE vulnerability? Then only Kubuntu is affected.

Is it a XFCE vulnerability? Then only Xubuntu is affected.

So just hypothetically speaking, if tomorrow every single PC had an ubuntu
variant installed and those 6 distributions where the only ones left in
existance and no other OS, it'd be relatively difficult to write a single
malware that could target EVERYTHING.

Contrary to Windows or MacOS where this is a rather simple task as they
both are monocultures.

Now reality is 300-some distributions, of which of course quite a few are
simply old distributions that probably aren't even maintained and
used anymore but are still listed on distro watch. Others are very
specialized distributions that you'd never see on a PC.

In the end you come down to a handful plus their derivatives that really
matter.

Writing software that can target all distributions which are reasonably up
to date is easy as long as the software does not have some exotic and weird
dependencies.

But writing malware to target all distributions would be virtually
impossible as malware needs to rely on exploits, and all the distributions
vary significantly enough to where they won't share the same exploits.

So I think from a security perspective, not even taking OS Design into
account, something such as Linux is much better off than Microsoft or
Apple.

Plus it doesn't suffer from hardware or software lock-in.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰