Confused over validation

[Nightowl]

Hi all

I've only today visited the download center at microsoft.com and come up
against the dreaded validation for the first time.

My copy of XP passes and for the rest of that session I "stay valid",
(i.e. if I try another download I get the "Genuine Windows" banner and
am offered the download immediately).

But I am confused over what happens between sessions. The info on the
Microsoft site says that once validated, a download key is placed on
your computer to speed up access in the future. I thought this meant the
validation would be persistent? But it doesn't seem to be.

If I use IE and visit the site again, I am again asked to validate.
Should this happen? When I check the box to validate now and continue, a
page flashes by too quickly for me to really see what's there, but it
looks like some screenshots of IE? Then it flashes back to the download
page and tells me I am genuine.

Is this the way it's supposed to work?

If I use Firefox to validate and then visit the site a second time, I
have to go through the whole validation procedure again, including
running the checker, pasting in the key it comes up with, etc.

I thought it would work like some kind of cookie on your machine so that
once validated it would be recognised as genuine every time you visit
the site. *Something* is definitely happening in IE, but the site is
still asking me to start the validation process. In Firefox whatever it
is is not "sticking".

I'm really confused. Can anyone tell me how this is meant to work? Have
we really got to go through this procedure every time? (Yes, I know it's
not mandatory at the mo, but they say it may be in the future.)

 

[Richard Urban]

If it were me (and I'll bet that many are glad it isn't) I would make people
validate each time. This would prevent them from taking the validation token
and using it on a machine that has a pirated copy of Windows XP installed on
it.

And yeah! I would also be known as "the hanging judge"!



--
Regards,

Richard Urban

If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[kurttrail]

Hi all

I've only today visited the download center at microsoft.com and come
up against the dreaded validation for the first time.

My copy of XP passes and for the rest of that session I "stay valid",
(i.e. if I try another download I get the "Genuine Windows" banner and
am offered the download immediately).

But I am confused over what happens between sessions. The info on the
Microsoft site says that once validated, a download key is placed on
your computer to speed up access in the future. I thought this meant
the validation would be persistent? But it doesn't seem to be.

If I use IE and visit the site again, I am again asked to validate.
Should this happen? When I check the box to validate now and
continue, a page flashes by too quickly for me to really see what's
there, but it looks like some screenshots of IE? Then it flashes back
to the download page and tells me I am genuine.

Is this the way it's supposed to work?

If I use Firefox to validate and then visit the site a second time, I
have to go through the whole validation procedure again, including
running the checker, pasting in the key it comes up with, etc.

I thought it would work like some kind of cookie on your machine so
that once validated it would be recognised as genuine every time you
visit the site. *Something* is definitely happening in IE, but the
site is still asking me to start the validation process. In Firefox
whatever it is is not "sticking".

I'm really confused. Can anyone tell me how this is meant to work?
Have we really got to go through this procedure every time? (Yes, I
know it's not mandatory at the mo, but they say it may be in the
future.)

Yep, that ain't the way it is supposed to work, but like ALL
copy-protection schemes it don't always work the way it is supposed to.
MS doesn't care about you as their paying customer, as they are too busy
censoring the Chinese bloggers for the commie Chinese gov't.

http://www.kurttrail.com/kblog/kblogarch/00000030.php

--
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"

 

[Nightowl]

Richard Urban wrote on Wed, 15 Jun 2005:

If it were me (and I'll bet that many are glad it isn't) I would make people
validate each time. This would prevent them from taking the validation token
and using it on a machine that has a pirated copy of Windows XP installed on
it.

And yeah! I would also be known as "the hanging judge"!

But it's okay to have a pirated copy of any Windows apart from XP and
2000, according to Microsoft.

Thanks for your opinion, anyway. Here are a couple of mine, though I
prefer to call them friendly suggestions:

Since you replied only to the last three lines of my post, that was all
you needed to quote, not the whole thing. And please do not post quotes
below your sig separator, since everything under that gets removed when
replying.

Thanks.

 

[Richard Urban]

I can see everything with Outlook Express. Too bad your news reader doesn't
show it all.

--
Regards,

Richard Urban

If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[NoStop]

I can see everything with Outlook Express. Too bad your news reader
doesn't show it all.

That's because REAL newsreaders follow Usenet netiquette, unlike Outlook
Express. Then again, MickeyMouse was rather slow in catching on to the fact
that the Net was going to be a big thing in the computing world. One would
think that they've had more than enough time to get OE working properly
with Usenet, but alas, that isn't the case.

 

[NoStop]

Richard Urban wrote on Wed, 15 Jun 2005:



But it's okay to have a pirated copy of any Windows apart from XP and
2000, according to Microsoft.

Thanks for your opinion, anyway. Here are a couple of mine, though I
prefer to call them friendly suggestions:

Since you replied only to the last three lines of my post, that was all
you needed to quote, not the whole thing. And please do not post quotes
below your sig separator, since everything under that gets removed when
replying.

Thanks.

He can't help it, without putting in a little effort. A small effort, yes,
but for some of the people around here, "effort" is something they don't
believe in.

Your newsreader is working properly and as an real newsreader should.
Obviously it isn't a toy, like OE is when it comes to Usenet. Not only
that, you're obviously wise enough to Usenet to not top post, unlike many
around here. But be warned ... trying to point this out to some around here
is a futile exercise and will only be met with their wrath and scorn.

 

[Alan Smith]

Hi all
.....
But I am confused over what happens between sessions. The info on the
Microsoft site says that once validated, a download key is placed on
your computer to speed up access in the future. I thought this meant the
validation would be persistent? But it doesn't seem to be.

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?



.......

 

[Nightowl]

Alan Smith wrote on Thu, 16 Jun 2005:

Why should it be?

Because that appeared to be what Microsoft were saying. Which is why I
asked here if this is the way it is supposed to work.

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?

Since I am not a pirate and have paid for my licence, yes. What do you
suggest instead -- that legit customers should be punished instead of
the thieves?

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?

A fallacious argument, since I haven't stolen anything.

 

[Nightowl]

Richard Urban wrote on Wed, 15 Jun 2005:

[Post re-ordered to make sense]

[Nightowl wrote:]

I can see everything with Outlook Express. Too bad your news reader doesn't
show it all.

OE is broken. That's no excuse. Thousands, if not millions, use OE in
other newsgroups and somehow manage not to paste quotes under their sig
separator. Not to mention your top-posting. But hey, if you want to
continue making it difficult for people to reply to you, go right ahead.

 

[Nightowl]

NoStop wrote on Thu, 16 Jun 2005:

He can't help it, without putting in a little effort. A small effort, yes,
but for some of the people around here, "effort" is something they don't
believe in.

Hmm, I'd heard (since I've never used the thing) that OE encouraged
top-posting, but until I came here I'd never seen this pasting quotes
under the sig separator in any group. Surely that's down to the user?

As for effort, in order to reply to him, I had to cut and paste quotes,
edit the quote depth and re-order the whole thing so it read coherently.
If he continues to make it that much of a job, I can't imagine many
people will bother.

Your newsreader is working properly and as an real newsreader should.
Obviously it isn't a toy, like OE is when it comes to Usenet. Not only
that, you're obviously wise enough to Usenet to not top post, unlike many
around here. But be warned ... trying to point this out to some around here
is a futile exercise and will only be met with their wrath and scorn.

Duly noted, thank you

 

[Doug Knox MS-MVP]

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.

 

[Nightowl]

Doug Knox MS-MVP wrote on Wed, 15 Jun 2005:

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.

Thank you, Doug. I'm glad to know it wasn't my computer playing up

 

[... et al.]

NoStop wrote on Thu, 16 Jun 2005:



Hmm, I'd heard (since I've never used the thing) that OE encouraged
top-posting, but until I came here I'd never seen this pasting quotes
under the sig separator in any group. Surely that's down to the user?

As for effort, in order to reply to him, I had to cut and paste quotes,
edit the quote depth and re-order the whole thing so it read coherently.
If he continues to make it that much of a job, I can't imagine many
people will bother.

The problem is that for many people it will be too hard to bother to try
another newsclient then OE. :-(

To me, it seems like an ovious example of Micros~1 *again* playing dirty
with the competition, this time by singlehandedly changing a
longstanding usenet convention.
The result is that when less knowledgable users ventures out and tries
to use a different newsreader then OE, they notices that *it seems* not
to work right because text is mysteriously dissappearing. So they will
return to the fold of being OE-lusers where *as long as everybody uses
OE* it looks fine (well, in that backwards top-posting way).

What is sad is that some high-volume posters in here, very knowledgable
and helpfull persons, supposedly unpaid my Micros~1, not only gladly
uses this broken newsclient like this, but in fact encourages others to
do the same. :-(

Duly noted, thank you

--
Global Fund for Mergers and Acquisitions
1203 Foley Square

Please followup in newsgroup.
E-mail address is invalid due to spam-control.

 

[Alias]

What is sad is that some high-volume posters in here, very knowledgable
and helpfull persons, supposedly unpaid my Micros~1, not only gladly uses
this broken newsclient like this, but in fact encourages others to do the
same. :-(

I tried Thunderbird and, frankly, it sucks.

Alias

 

[kurttrail]

The problem is that for many people it will be too hard to bother to
try another newsclient then OE. :-(

To me, it seems like an ovious example of Micros~1 *again* playing
dirty with the competition, this time by singlehandedly changing a
longstanding usenet convention.

Go hawk saving your "traditional values" to your church.

Conventions change, and are the rallying cry of conformists.

The result is that when less knowledgable users ventures out and tries
to use a different newsreader then OE, they notices that *it seems*
not to work right because text is mysteriously dissappearing. So they
will return to the fold of being OE-lusers where *as long as
everybody uses OE* it looks fine (well, in that backwards top-posting
way).

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

What is sad is that some high-volume posters in here, very
knowledgable and helpfull persons, supposedly unpaid my Micros~1, not
only gladly uses this broken newsclient like this, but in fact
encourages others to do the same. :-(

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? 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.

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.

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.

--
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.]

... et al. wrote:




Go hawk saving your "traditional values" to your church.

Conventions change, and are the rallying cry of conformists.




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




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? 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.

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.

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.

The problem I see is it's the same OE users who top post (including a
lot of MVPs) who complain that repliers don't quote what they're
replying to. It's not about netiquette or standards, it's about doing
what works. Top posting with OE and using a sig does not work to retain
quoted material in a discussion when many others do not use OE.

Steve

 

[kurttrail]

The problem I see is it's the same OE users who top post (including a
lot of MVPs) who complain that repliers don't quote what they're
replying to. It's not about netiquette or standards, it's about doing
what works. Top posting with OE and using a sig does not work to
retain quoted material in a discussion when many others do not use OE.

And you sign every post with "Steve," but don't have it formatted as a
proper sig.

Does it bother me, no. But we all do something that somebody else
thinks is not the proper way of doing things.

Live and let live.

And I agree with your post. Some of my MVP friends in this group, are
dyed-in-the-wool top posters. Many, if not most of them have been
posting to the USENET much longer than I have, and have read every
argument, both pro and con, over and over again. They choose to top
post. Oh well!

--
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.]

Steve N. wrote:




And you sign every post with "Steve," but don't have it formatted as a
proper sig.

Does it bother me, no. But we all do something that somebody else
thinks is not the proper way of doing things.

It's not proper vs improper in my mind and that's not what I intended to
imply.

Live and let live.

And I agree with your post. Some of my MVP friends in this group, are
dyed-in-the-wool top posters. Many, if not most of them have been
posting to the USENET much longer than I have, and have read every
argument, both pro and con, over and over again. They choose to top
post. Oh well!

I don't mind top posting in the least. What I mind is not being able to
reply to a top posted OE message with a sig and keep the previous qouted
material without manually copying and pasting it.

Steve

 

[kurttrail]

It's not proper vs improper in my mind and that's not what I intended
to imply.


I don't mind top posting in the least. What I mind is not being able
to reply to a top posted OE message with a sig and keep the previous
qouted material without manually copying and pasting it.

I just cut the sig. With OE Quotefix it is done automatically anyway
with a properly formatted sig line.

--
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"