Bah! Bill Gates, suck it.

[Screenor]

Well, richest man in the world (Bill Gates, duh), creator/owner of Microsoft blah blah blah you now how it goes, anyways, here it is:

Microsoft blocks pirated copies from Windows updates

Microsoft has now offically started blocking pirated copies of Windows from using the Windows Update feature. With the latest Windows update it forces a new installer and new validation tool, once this is installed, when you try to do a Windows update again, you get the message " [ Support ID: 0x8DDD1003 ] To get updates, you must first validate your Windows software. Validation assures that you are using an authentic and fully licensed copy of Windows."

Now I don't know the figures, but I'd assume there are probably more pirated copies of Windows out there then there are legit, specifically in Asian countries like China. So now we have a very unsecure Operating System that constantly needs updates/fixes to prevent millions of computers from being taken over by viruses/worms, that can no longer update. I'm sure those kiddies who run botnets are happy.

Good job Microsoft.

Then, the update from our beloved unknowns:

** UPDATE **
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/07/28/microsoft_genuine_ad.html
Has presented a fix for this.

Also one of our forum users posted a even easier fix:

1. Open IE
2. Click on Tools
3. Click on Internet options
4. Click to the Programs tab
5. Click on the Manage Add-ons button.
6. Select Windows Genuine Advantage
7. Click Disable
8. Done, now you can do Windows updates again.

Originally found here.



Meh, comment.

[Newby]

You know, you don't have this problem if you own a legal copy of the OS.

And if you didn't pay for the software, why the fuck should you receive support and patches for it?

Fuck you, you are on your own if you can't afford to pay them for something they make.

http://www.x86labs.org/forum/index.php/topic,2050.0.html

[Tuberload]

Yes, and now all of the fuckers who, for whatever reason, do not own a legitimate copy of Windows run an even higher chance of getting infected/compromised than they did before. Like screenor said, DDoS platforms will probably grow larger than before, and all of the proud legitimate people could possibly feel some sort of negative impact caused by this.

I do not think this is the best way to go about stopping piracy either.

[Newby]

I think it's a perfectly good idea. People don't want to get infected, so they buy Windows XP. Simple, no?

If they're smart enough to know how to pirate Windows, they're smart enough to keep up-to-date with their anti-virus software and spyware software.

And they can own a firewall, too.

Infact, security patches are essentially useless with those three things and half a brain.

If you can't afford Windows, use Linux.

[Tuberload]

I think it's a perfectly good idea. People don't want to get infected, so they buy Windows XP. Simple, no?

If they're smart enough to know how to pirate Windows, they're smart enough to keep up-to-date with their anti-virus software and spyware software.

And they can own a firewall, too.

Infact, security patches are essentially useless with those three things and half a brain.

If you can't afford Windows, use Linux.

I don't think you're grasping the overall concept of what this could cause.

Why not just render illegitament copies unusable? This would remove the possible DDoS drone from existance and still only allow legitament uses.

Instead they are just adding more future drones to the net.

[Screenor]

You know, you don't have this problem if you own a legal copy of the OS.

And if you didn't pay for the software, why the fuck should you receive support and patches for it?

Fuck you, you are on your own if you can't afford to pay them for something they make.

http://www.x86labs.org/forum/index.php/topic,2050.0.html

Wasn't able to find it, k? I never said anyone with an illegal copy of it should get patches for it, so why the "fuck" do you assume so?

Also, watch your mouth bud, I never said anywhere in that thread I owned an illegal copy, k?

Maybe you didn't read the bottom of the first quote, dolt, but it congratulates Microsoft about it, and this was an article I found on a website, which I gave credit to 2nd line to the bottom of the post.

I think it's a perfectly good idea. People don't want to get infected, so they buy Windows XP. Simple, no?

If they're smart enough to know how to pirate Windows, they're smart enough to keep up-to-date with their anti-virus software and spyware software.

And they can own a firewall, too.

Infact, security patches are essentially useless with those three things and half a brain.

If you can't afford Windows, use Linux.

I don't think you're grasping the overall concept of what this could cause.

Why not just render illegitament copies unusable? This would remove the possible DDoS drone from existance and still only allow legitament uses.

Instead they are just adding more future drones to the net.

Exactly.

I think it's a perfectly good idea. People don't want to get infected, so they buy Windows XP. Simple, no?

If they're smart enough to know how to pirate Windows, they're smart enough to keep up-to-date with their anti-virus software and spyware software.

And they can own a firewall, too.

Infact, security patches are essentially useless with those three things and half a brain.

If you can't afford Windows, use Linux.

It's easy to download and run an application file.

[Newby]

I never said anyone with an illegal copy of it should get patches for it, so why the "fuck" do you assume so?

What were you implying with a topic named Bah! Bill Gates, suck it.?

Also, watch your mouth bud, I never said anywhere in that thread I owned an illegal copy, k?

Did I say you owned an illegal copy? No? I didn't? Oh, gee, mis-interpretation at its finest.

I simply stated fuck you and your intentions if you feel people who own pirated software should receive support for it (which is what is implied in your topic title).

Maybe you didn't read the bottom of the first quote, dolt, but it congratulates Microsoft about it, and this was an article I found on a website, which I gave credit to 2nd line to the bottom of the post.

Maybe you didn't read my post fully, dolt, but did you notice the "Good job Microsoft " was sarcastic?

Why not just render illegitament copies unusable? This would remove the possible DDoS drone from existance and still only allow legitament uses.

What about those that don't know their copies are illegal? What if they suddenly lose lots of valuable data and something bad happens to them?

Lawsuits, my friend. They can sue the living hell out of Microsoft for compromising their data. They may not have known their copy was illegal, and Windows Update telling you "your copy was installed with an invalid cd-key" allows them to contact support to receive a legitimate copy.

It's easy to download and run an application file.

It's even easier to use common judgement when opening it. Virus scanning and spyware scanning take away ~75% of virus/trojan threats. The other ~25% due to a packet file or whatnot should be easy to spot from the file size (I've never seen a 185kb installer, have you?)

(Yes, the numbers are estimates, but it's probably close.)

EDIT -- Tuberload, sure, it adds future drones to the net, but guess what?

If that user doesn't want their ISP to dis-continue their service, and they don't want to be infected, they'll get off of that pirated OS quick as hell if they're smart.

I realize your standpoint on this situation. I used to hold the same one as well.

And as I think of it, it's the perfect way to end piracy.

Legitimate users who are affected by it won't promote piracy of Windows, now will they?

Infact, I know if I start getting attacked I'll tell all my friends to buy XP instead of download it. Will you?

[Screenor]

Quote from: Scr33n0r on Today at 09:46:50 PM
I never said anyone with an illegal copy of it should get patches for it, so why the "fuck" do you assume so?

What were you implying with a topic named Bah! Bill Gates, suck it.?

Simply implying that it's sad that Microsoft would thing canceling updates really would help.


Very hard to beleive people wouldn't know if their OS is pirated, it's just like you and your 40+ gigs of downloaded music.

Quote from: Scr33n0r on Today at 09:46:50 PM
Also, watch your mouth bud, I never said anywhere in that thread I owned an illegal copy, k?

Did I say you owned an illegal copy? No? I didn't? Oh, gee, mis-interpretation at its finest.

I simply stated fuck you and your intentions if you feel people who own pirated software should receive support for it (which is what is implied in your topic title).

Hmm, funny.

Fuck you, you are on your own if you can't afford to pay them for something they make.

As in referring to me or just hoping I'd assume you mean one millions of other people?

Quote from: Scr33n0r on Today at 09:46:50 PM
Maybe you didn't read the bottom of the first quote, dolt, but it congratulates Microsoft about it, and this was an article I found on a website, which I gave credit to 2nd line to the bottom of the post.

Maybe you didn't read my post fully, dolt, but did you notice the "Good job Microsoft Smiley" was sarcastic?

#1: Sorry, I don't hear tones in your voice when you type.

#2:

Now I don't know the figures, but I'd assume there are probably more pirated copies of Windows out there then there are legit, specifically in Asian countries like China. So now we have a very unsecure Operating System that constantly needs updates/fixes to prevent millions of computers from being taken over by viruses/worms, that can no longer update. I'm sure those kiddies who run botnets are happy.

Good job Microsoft. Smiley

Sounds more like a congrat to me, if I didn't read it I wouldn't have quoted it to you, dolt.


And to end this, and to make it clear so I'm not senslesly banned, you began this flame war, I simply posted something about Windows Security.

[Quik]

Why would you assume that all users who do not want to verify a legitmate copy to get Windows Updates actually have gotten theirs illegally? Personally, I avoid doing so simply because it means Microsoft gets reported one more installation on my legal corperation (multi-install) copy of Windows XP, potentially allowing me one fewer install.

[Newby]

Quote from: Scr33n0r on Today at 09:46:50 PM
I never said anyone with an illegal copy of it should get patches for it, so why the "fuck" do you assume so?

What were you implying with a topic named Bah! Bill Gates, suck it.?

Simply implying that it's sad that Microsoft would thing canceling updates really would help.

They aren't cancelling updates. Infact, I bet if I booted into Windows I could still get mine!

Very hard to beleive people wouldn't know if their OS is pirated, it's just like you and your 40+ gigs of downloaded music.

Really? What about 12 year olds who borrow it from their friends, assuming it's perfectly legal?

Fuck you, you are on your own if you can't afford to pay them for something they make.

As in referring to me or just hoping I'd assume you mean one millions of other people?

I am referring to those who think they deserve support for something they didn't pay for.

Now I don't know the figures, but I'd assume there are probably more pirated copies of Windows out there then there are legit, specifically in Asian countries like China. So now we have a very unsecure Operating System that constantly needs updates/fixes to prevent millions of computers from being taken over by viruses/worms, that can no longer update. I'm sure those kiddies who run botnets are happy.

Good job Microsoft.

How can you not see the tone of sarcasm in that writing? Do those sound like words of praise for Microsoft?

[trust]

Hi.

I agree with Newby.

That is all.

[iago]

Newby -- would you pay $250 out of your own copy of Windows?  Or do you only have a legal copy because your parents bought it for you?  $250 is a lot of money for a normal person. 

[Quik]

Newby -- would you pay $250 out of your own copy of Windows? Or do you only have a legal copy because your parents bought it for you? $250 is a lot of money for a normal person.

I'm assuming his parents didn't buy it. Remember all of the Micro$oft freebies he kept bragging about?

Some people argue that, like music pirates, software pirates obtain what they want illegally to make a statement about the price. Others think they are cheap, or do not actually have the money to spend. Whatever the case may be, if the risk of getting caught is worth running to have the software, and possibly not have it to it's full extent (if you're smart, you can get around this, as has been demonstrated), then you're better off pirating the program.

Again, I am against the Genuine Advantage, but not because I use pirated versions of the disc.

[Sidoh]

Newby -- would you pay $250 out of your own copy of Windows?  Or do you only have a legal copy because your parents bought it for you?  $250 is a lot of money for a normal person. 

I was about to say the same thing. Newby, I think you should stop bashing on people who pirate software. It's really hypocritical of you.

By the way, Screenor. Threads directly related to this one have already been posted. We know.

[iago]

Newby, I think you should stop bashing on people who pirate software. It's really hypocritical of you.

"hypocritical" is a very good word.  Especially when you get that defensive about something that you do a lot of, it does reflect badly on you :-P

[iago]

Incidentally, whether or not you have a pirated version of Windows you can still get security updates.  So this isn't going to cause more DoS bots or anything, it just makes it difficult to get DirectX or drivers, which aren't a security issue.

[trust]

I too am hypocritical when it comes to this. But Windows is something I use everyday, and I certainly wouldn't run an illegally obtained copy. For the amount of ease it gives the average user, the cost is next to nothing. You use it everyday, and it makes your life easier. Like it or not, Microsoft did an good job overall and it certainly has made a lot of peoples lives easier. They may not be making the majority of their money off of home users, but that really isn't the point.

I pirate movies without thinking twice, because I only watch them once. I do pay a monthly fee ($10) for a music streaming service though, and I do buy most of my games. I think if you're going to use something everyday (and Windows in many cases helps people MAKE money) then you should pay for it. It's like stealing a television, you guys don't want to be eNiggers do you?

[Screenor]

Newby -- would you pay $250 out of your own copy of Windows?  Or do you only have a legal copy because your parents bought it for you?  $250 is a lot of money for a normal person. 

I was about to say the same thing. Newby, I think you should stop bashing on people who pirate software. It's really hypocritical of you.

By the way, Screenor. Threads directly related to this one have already been posted. We know.

Yeah, I searched for it, found nothing myself, so I figured eh.

EDIT

Also, as far as Microsoft's security updates go, they really arn't all that helpful, considering they give them so late in the "game", if you will. Nothing against them, but they're not very on the ball about it.

[Tuberload]

Newby this seems to be a sensetive issue for you. If someone doesn't know there copy of Windows isn't a legit copy then something is wrong with that person. As far as lawsuits go, simple, give them a warning that in a week or so there copy will no longer work. It is not a very hard concept, but just making it so illegal copies of the software cannot be updated is stupid in my opinion. I support the idea of not allowing illegal copies to be used, just not the method of stopping it. You do not need to get so sensetive over a topic like this anyways, it is pointless.

[Screenor]

Newby this seems to be a sensetive issue for you. If someone doesn't know there copy of Windows isn't a legit copy then something is wrong with that person. As far as lawsuits go, simple, give them a warning that in a week or so there copy will no longer work. It is not a very hard concept, but just making it so illegal copies of the software cannot be updated is stupid in my opinion. I support the idea of not allowing illegal copies to be used, just not the method of stopping it. You do not need to get so sensetive over a topic like this anyways, it is pointless.

He just dislikes me, and will jump at the chance to prove me wrong (as far as I can tell). I know he wouldn't argue this with someone such as iago.

[Sidoh]

He's made that same statement in several other posts, screenor. It's not just you.

[Screenor]

Oh that makes me feel much better now.

Newby's anger put into songs

http://screend-productions.net/Music/  (I can't link directly to the directory for some reason, so meh eat me)

[Newby]

Newby, I think you should stop bashing on people who pirate software. It's really hypocritical of you.

"hypocritical" is a very good word.  Especially when you get that defensive about something that you do a lot of, it does reflect badly on you :-P

Meh. I find there is a big difference between pirating music (to show up the RIAA for being a bunch of capitalist assholes (I will write up a list of reasons later)) and pirating Windows (because you don't want to pay for it) (guess why the price is so high? they have to fight losses caused by piracy!), but that's just me. I guess technically I am hypocritical since I pirate software because I'm a cheap asshole, but there are some things I feel I wouldn't pirate (stuff I would use every day).

Infact, I can't think of one single piece of software I'm running right now on Windows that I don't legally own!

As for Quik and my "micro$oft freebies", I did indeed pay for them.

[Sidoh]

It doesn't matter, Newby. You hurt small companies more by pirating their $30 software than you do a massive corporation by pirating their $300 OS.

Regardless of your above justification, I still find your outrage towards people who pirate Windows quite hypocritcal.

I think everyone our age that shares the same ambition towards technology is a cheap asshole. I for one am not going to pay $300 for Windows XP Pro, nor am I going to pay $80 for XP Home. Though they may lose a large amount of profit due to piracy, they still aren't going bankrupt.

[Newby]

It doesn't matter, Newby. You hurt small companies more by pirating their $30 software than you do a massive corporation by pirating their $300 OS.

Regardless of your above justification, I still find your outrage towards people who pirate Windows quite hypocritcal.

I think everyone our age that shares the same ambition towards technology is a cheap asshole. I for one am not going to pay $300 for Windows XP Pro, nor am I going to pay $80 for XP Home. Though they may lose a large amount of profit due to piracy, they still aren't going bankrupt.

Outrage? I don't care if they pirate the OS. I wish they'd buy it, but then again, I wish I could afford the smaller products I used to pirate. I simply think that if they think they even deserve the slightest bit of help with their pirated copy, they can quite promptly fuck off. If I needed help with something I pirated, I figured it out on my own. If I needed security patches or the product was insecure, I most likely stopped using it.

EDIT -- Now that I think of it, one product busted me for attempting to use a "blacklisted" key. "This key has been blacklisted. If you are attempting to pirate our OS, <insert some really cruel mean things here about how I am an asshole and how it hurts their company>. If you are a legit customer, please contact technical support. Have a nice day." After it rebooted my computer, I promptly un-installed it.

[Sidoh]

Again, none of the above provides any proof what-so-ever that your claims that us pirating "ass holes" are no different than you.

How'd you find the key that was blacklisted? The internet, likely. Not much different than any of us.

[Newby]

I never called pirates "ass holes", I called pirates that think they deserve support for paying customers (even though they didn't pay) "ass holes".

[Screenor]

I never called pirates "ass holes", I called pirates that think they deserve support for paying customers (even though they didn't pay) "ass holes".

No one said anything about anyone who pirates software "thinking they need support", programmers are simply offering ways to the software pirates to continue receiving updates. No one demanded the programs that do so.

Same way people make hacks for games like BF2, WoW, GW, CS, Source, HL2, HL, D2, SC, WC, UT, and the list goes on and on. No one forces those programmers to make the public a few hacks, they just do it.

[Warrior]

Point is, a topic is started complaining about Microsoft's recent combat against piracy of thier OS which involved limiting updating to activating clients, if someone found a way around it then fine but don't start a topic about how Microsoft is in the wrong for wanting to protect software that they wrote.

Now on the topic of pirating. I obtained my copy of Windows XP legally (omg) but am not against piracy against it because I have done it myself (and still do it with Vista and Win2k3 ). However asking for support for something that was pirated or expecting security updates is plain stupid and I think Windows should have taken action much sooner and still think they need to take more action and secure this decision of thiers more.

[Ergot]

It's like a bum asking for a $100 bill. Beggers can't be choosers.

[trust]

Hi.

[Screenor]

Hi.

...


Anyways, people asking for support wasn't the original topic, Newby came up with that one on his own terms, my reasoning for making the topic is because you ARE infact able to disable the anti-update for illegal copies of windows, with their own software (IE), which I found quite funny and felt like sharing. Everything you all are arguing about is bullshit, it's not what this thread was directly about.

[Ergot]

I pressed the back button while validating, it still let me update :/

[Newby]

Yesyes, Scr33n0r. We realize why you posted it.

It really wasn't security, though. More of a bug than a security issue, but eh.

[Warrior]

Hi.

...


Anyways, people asking for support wasn't the original topic, Newby came up with that one on his own terms, my reasoning for making the topic is because you ARE infact able to disable the anti-update for illegal copies of windows, with their own software (IE), which I found quite funny and felt like sharing. Everything you all are arguing about is bullshit, it's not what this thread was directly about.

If you notice you contributed to the new topic set forth thus it shifted and you argued one point and Newby, me, and others argued other points. Now because you're losing an argument don't get all "oh you guys changed the topic omg".

[Screenor]

Hi.

...


Anyways, people asking for support wasn't the original topic, Newby came up with that one on his own terms, my reasoning for making the topic is because you ARE infact able to disable the anti-update for illegal copies of windows, with their own software (IE), which I found quite funny and felt like sharing. Everything you all are arguing about is bullshit, it's not what this thread was directly about.

If you notice you contributed to the new topic set forth thus it shifted and you argued one point and Newby, me, and others argued other points. Now because you're losing an argument don't get all "oh you guys changed the topic omg".

Notice I said he started it, I never said "no one contributed to it". Also, no one "lost" anything, k? Shut face.

[Warrior]

Getting touchy? No, I just think it's a little hypocritical of you trying to justify you losing (yes, losing) and argument to a single person when you infact DID contribute to it. Hypocrite.
Now unless you can provide a better point to this argument, shutup and enjoy the ride.

[Screenor]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hypocrite

As far as I'm concernced, according do the best known dictionary on the internet, you seem to have your definition of being "hypocrtical", wrong, k? k.

I never said I didn't "lose" anything, however, I wasn't trying to "win" anything, there for, you = fail.

When you learn the real definition of the word "hypocrite", stop trying to be an e-thug, and get your facts straight, I'll listen to what you have to say, now, going back to what I said before. Shut face.

[trust]

Why do so many people use dictionary.com with its popups and ads? Webster.com is indefinitely superior.

[Ergot]

I use m-w.com :/

[Warrior]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hypocrite

As far as I'm concernced, according do the best known dictionary on the internet, you seem to have your definition of being "hypocrtical", wrong, k? k.

I never said I didn't "lose" anything, however, I wasn't trying to "win" anything, there for, you = fail.

When you learn the real definition of the word "hypocrite", stop trying to be an e-thug, and get your facts straight, I'll listen to what you have to say, now, going back to what I said before. Shut face.

Actually, you contribute to a "problem" or as you referr to it and then cry about someone contributing to it as well, good job hypocrite.

When you argue it's to prove a point so you indeed are trying to win the agreement of whoever you are arguing against but seeing as the other side provided a stronger argument you failed to do that thus you lost.

Therefore you = fail at life, the internet, and anything else.
Suicide.

[Screenor]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hypocrite

As far as I'm concernced, according do the best known dictionary on the internet, you seem to have your definition of being "hypocrtical", wrong, k? k.

I never said I didn't "lose" anything, however, I wasn't trying to "win" anything, there for, you = fail.

When you learn the real definition of the word "hypocrite", stop trying to be an e-thug, and get your facts straight, I'll listen to what you have to say, now, going back to what I said before. Shut face.

Actually, you contribute to a "problem" or as you referr to it and then cry about someone contributing to it as well, good job hypocrite.

When you argue it's to prove a point so you indeed are trying to win the agreement of whoever you are arguing against but seeing as the other side provided a stronger argument you failed to do that thus you lost.

Therefore you = fail at life, the internet, and anything else.
Suicide.

"or as you referr to it...." trailing off a bit there bud? Or could the words just not come to mouth? You seem to want to argue about who won and who lost so badly, why don't you make a new thread on where it belongs? Since you obviously don't want to stay on topic, you sir, lose.

[Sidoh]

Psch. Wikipedia FTW!

[Screenor]

Psch. Wikipedia FTW!

I just like how funny the name sounds

[Warrior]

"or as you referr to it...." trailing off a bit there bud? Or could the words just not come to mouth? You seem to want to argue about who won and who lost so badly, why don't you make a new thread on where it belongs? Since you obviously don't want to stay on topic, you sir, lose.

No, you referred to it as a problem by wasting a post on pointing it out and I just pointed out you
contributed to the problem you just bashed someone else on. Can you understand that or do you want
me to say it slower in a bigger font with double spacing so maybe you can take a hint?

You're making no sense, I just explained what winning and losing was in an argument and you still are hell bent on the idea that I am eager to argue about it. Learn to read, retard.

Now since you are unable to present a stronger argument than what was presenting you not only lose the argument but you must feel pretty fucking stupid to try to argue the same topic and lose twice, nice job dipshit.

This is why no one likes you. Go back to not posting here loser.

[iago]

Psch. Wikipedia FTW!

I prefer a source that I can depend on.  You can't depend on Wikipedia.

I use dictionary.com, thanks to adblock, but I wouldn't call it the "best" one. 

[Sidoh]

Haha, yeah.  I use Wikipedia some of the time, others I use google's "define:<word>" function.

[Blaze]

I own 5 legal copies on windows Xp prof.  I think the key to having Windows Products is having a friend who works for them.

[trust]

Haha, yeah.  I use Wikipedia some of the time, others I use google's "define:<word>" function.

Yes, define: is handy. I love Wikipedia too, but I don't use it for simple definitions - more for when I need actual information.

[Sidoh]

Yeah, that's basically what I use Wikipedia for too.