On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:07:20 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message

Joe, there are millions of people using XP and Vista with WGA.
Very few are experts.
They are somehow getting by.
Do you think MS is spying on people?
AFAICT the main reason to avoid WGA is that the OS is pirated.
I have heard that VISTA is already hacked, and can get MS updates.
Some might argue that beyond service packs, the updates are
unnecessary.
What's your point?

--Vic


Vic, I would be happy to discuss this further with you. First, read the
article and tell me what you think about it. We really can't proceed until
you do that.

And by the way, I'm no expert either.

I did read it, and these same scattered validation issues were there
years ago, when MS started installing WGA. But it remains that the
vast majority of users have no problems with it.
If you are concerned about WGA, there are hacks to get around it.
These are illegal, as is spitting on the sidewalk.
Otherwise there is Linux, MacOS, etc.
But I want to hear your views on this.
BTW, I don't like my computer communicating with Redmond either,
but some thing must be put in personal perspective, and some people
have no problem with it.

--Vic

--Vic

--Vic

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:07:20 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message

Joe, there are millions of people using XP and Vista with WGA.
Very few are experts.
They are somehow getting by.
Do you think MS is spying on people?
AFAICT the main reason to avoid WGA is that the OS is pirated.
I have heard that VISTA is already hacked, and can get MS updates.
Some might argue that beyond service packs, the updates are
unnecessary.
What's your point?

--Vic


Vic, I would be happy to discuss this further with you. First, read the
article and tell me what you think about it. We really can't proceed until
you do that.

And by the way, I'm no expert either.

I did read it, and these same scattered validation issues were there
years ago, when MS started installing WGA. But it remains that the
vast majority of users have no problems with it.
If you are concerned about WGA, there are hacks to get around it.
These are illegal, as is spitting on the sidewalk.
Otherwise there is Linux, MacOS, etc.
But I want to hear your views on this.
BTW, I don't like my computer communicating with Redmond either,
but some thing must be put in personal perspective, and some people
have no problem with it.


Beginning with "I did read it", you mentioned several issues (plural), and
then asked for "views on this" (singular). Pick one issue to start with.
It's busy here.

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:23:52 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:



Beginning with "I did read it", you mentioned several issues (plural), and
then asked for "views on this" (singular). Pick one issue to start with.
It's busy here.


Do you feel that WGA will report a "false positive" when attempting to
validate your OS, deactivate or cripple you OS, thus requiring you to
call MS to resolve it?

--Vic

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:23:52 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:



Beginning with "I did read it", you mentioned several issues (plural), and
then asked for "views on this" (singular). Pick one issue to start with.
It's busy here.


Do you feel that WGA will report a "false positive" when attempting to
validate your OS, deactivate or cripple you OS, thus requiring you to
call MS to resolve it?

--Vic


Since there are reports of this, then it is possible, and not always for
reasons that are any of MS' business. Hardware changes, for instance.
Therefore, WGA is broken.

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:29:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message

Do you feel that WGA will report a "false positive" when attempting to
validate your OS, deactivate or cripple you OS, thus requiring you to
call MS to resolve it?

Since there are reports of this, then it is possible, and not always for
reasons that are any of MS' business. Hardware changes, for instance.
Therefore, WGA is broken.

Yes, I've heard of that. Not sure this is isolated to MB/CPU changes,
but it has raised complaints from some.

Can you address this bit you wrote?

If you allow windows update to freely do its thing, you WILL have issues
eventually. It's not a matter of "if". It's "when".

Do you really believe this, or was it hyperbole?

--Vic

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:29:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message

Do you feel that WGA will report a "false positive" when attempting to
validate your OS, deactivate or cripple you OS, thus requiring you to
call MS to resolve it?

Since there are reports of this, then it is possible, and not always for
reasons that are any of MS' business. Hardware changes, for instance.
Therefore, WGA is broken.

Yes, I've heard of that. Not sure this is isolated to MB/CPU changes,
but it has raised complaints from some.

Can you address this bit you wrote?

If you allow windows update to freely do its thing, you WILL have issues
eventually. It's not a matter of "if". It's "when".

Do you really believe this, or was it hyperbole?

--Vic


I've seen it. Not on all computers, but on some. How about you?

Even before WGA, the auto update process was seriously flawed. Do you
remember the update that completely changed the way OE allowed access to
attachments. Of course, this was not made clear to users until they hit a
brick wall when trying to access attachments. When this happened at my home
office, I was enjoying myself in Puerto Rico, out of cell phone range. Our
local computer consultant was home sick with the flu. Our "rainmaker", a guy
whose enormous sales depend on attachments, was dead in the water for a day.

The MS newsgroups are periodically loaded with identical questions from
users whose machines have been somehow sabotaged by a "helpful" update. Even
the MS MVPs who answer users' question often recommend turning off auto
updates, opting instead for users to just be notified of an available
update, and waiting to see the effects they have on hapless people who
didn't follow their advice.

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:51:08 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:



Can you address this bit you wrote?

If you allow windows update to freely do its thing, you WILL have issues
eventually. It's not a matter of "if". It's "when".

Do you really believe this, or was it hyperbole?

--Vic


I've seen it. Not on all computers, but on some. How about you?

No, but my experience is limited to corporate PC's, and home PC's not
used for business.

Even before WGA, the auto update process was seriously flawed. Do you
remember the update that completely changed the way OE allowed access to
attachments. Of course, this was not made clear to users until they hit a
brick wall when trying to access attachments. When this happened at my home
office, I was enjoying myself in Puerto Rico, out of cell phone range. Our
local computer consultant was home sick with the flu. Our "rainmaker", a guy
whose enormous sales depend on attachments, was dead in the water for a day.

I can now see your concern, and it's a valid one. I don't use OE at
home, preferring Agent, and at work the "image" team always kept OE
either flawless, or quickly fixed. A small business using MS doesn't
have that infrastructure. Shame on MS.

The MS newsgroups are periodically loaded with identical questions from
users whose machines have been somehow sabotaged by a "helpful" update. Even
the MS MVPs who answer users' question often recommend turning off auto
updates, opting instead for users to just be notified of an available
update, and waiting to see the effects they have on hapless people who
didn't follow their advice.

An individual user would be well advised to get updates manually, and
ghost an image beforehand, so he could restore if the update caused
issues. Personally, after the major security updates with XP, I never
went back, since the updates have no relevance for me on a single
workstation, and only further bloat the OS.
"If it ain't broke don't fix it."

You also said this:
Harry, I expected this. It's pathetic, really. The article is about a
piece of the windows update software which is essentially spyware.

Beyond looking at hardware configs for validation purposes - which IMO
is questionable for various reasons unrelated to spying - do you think
MS is really "spying" in the sense of gathering information about you
that they aren't entitled to?

--Vic

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:28:28 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

Do you feel that WGA will report a "false positive" when attempting to
validate your OS, deactivate or cripple you OS, thus requiring you to
call MS to resolve it?


I had that problem with my father in law's PC running XP pro. It
turned his machine into a doorstop.
We called Microshaft and Bob from Bombay was ready to tell us how to
fix it when he figured out this was a Dell. Then suddenly it was $70
for the answer or call Dell. Dell's tech support Biff from Bombay
didn't know that trick so his fix was to reload the system from
scratch. XP's charming habit of putting "documents" in the windoze
directory means they are gone too. Fortunately I moved a lot of these
targets to the D drive for him.


I've done almost 30 XP and Office installations, and I have never seen docs
placed in the c:\windows directory. Which software placed its documents
there on the machine you're talking(s) about?

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:18:46 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:28:28 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

Do you feel that WGA will report a "false positive" when attempting to
validate your OS, deactivate or cripple you OS, thus requiring you to
call MS to resolve it?


I had that problem with my father in law's PC running XP pro. It
turned his machine into a doorstop.
We called Microshaft and Bob from Bombay was ready to tell us how to
fix it when he figured out this was a Dell. Then suddenly it was $70
for the answer or call Dell. Dell's tech support Biff from Bombay
didn't know that trick so his fix was to reload the system from
scratch. XP's charming habit of putting "documents" in the windoze
directory means they are gone too. Fortunately I moved a lot of these
targets to the D drive for him.


I've done almost 30 XP and Office installations, and I have never seen docs
placed in the c:\windows directory. Which software placed its documents
there on the machine you're talking(s) about?

It's the docs and setting dir. I recall trying to change it as
default, but it can't be done. Don't know if it gets overlaid on a
reinstall. I don't do reinstalls (-:
But the location of docs is a consideration when devising a backup
scheme which considers a crash of the C: drive.

--Vic

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:18:46 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:28:28 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

Do you feel that WGA will report a "false positive" when attempting to
validate your OS, deactivate or cripple you OS, thus requiring you to
call MS to resolve it?


I had that problem with my father in law's PC running XP pro. It
turned his machine into a doorstop.
We called Microshaft and Bob from Bombay was ready to tell us how to
fix it when he figured out this was a Dell. Then suddenly it was $70
for the answer or call Dell. Dell's tech support Biff from Bombay
didn't know that trick so his fix was to reload the system from
scratch. XP's charming habit of putting "documents" in the windoze
directory means they are gone too. Fortunately I moved a lot of these
targets to the D drive for him.


I've done almost 30 XP and Office installations, and I have never seen
docs
placed in the c:\windows directory. Which software placed its documents
there on the machine you're talking(s) about?

It's the docs and setting dir. I recall trying to change it as
default, but it can't be done. Don't know if it gets overlaid on a
reinstall. I don't do reinstalls (-:
But the location of docs is a consideration when devising a backup
scheme which considers a crash of the C: drive.

--Vic

Without exception on the machines I've been involved with, the default
document dir is always My Documents, which is not a subdir of c:\windows.
This can be changed, but it's not something most users stumble across.
Matter of fact, I thought it required the optional Powertoys utilities in
order to do this.

I'm not sure what he's talking about. Let's wait and see.