XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

I have no way of determining if this is true, but this geting some attention

Windows SP2 Denies Access to Illegal CD Keys

"This time around Microsoft may have found a much more destructive way to get rid off Illegal copies of WindowsXp than Service Pack1. Users installing SP1 on illegal copies would simply get a 'This is a pirated copy' error message. But now Microsoft has armed itself with a huge list of illegal CD keys ensuring that not only does the SP2 not install, but also destroys the computer hard drive by rendering it unusable."

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

Destroying personal property is probably not on the list of approved things to do to combat computer software piracy.

Also, despite what many people think, legitimate reporters won't often randomly capitalize 'Illegal', nor will they screw up the nomenclature of Windows XP.

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

I call FUD.

It would be completely illegal for them to do that. Consider: many pirated CD keys are from corporate editions; if the rightful owner used a CD key that had been ripped off, and consequently had any data whatsoever damaged by intentional means, the lawyers would tear Microsoft apart immediately. And rightfully so.

But really, even a pirating user who had some data damaged might have legal recourse to file suit. (Though the case wouldn't necessarily be a slam dunk.)

(Read the comments for that article. Several posters call it like it is.)

Edit: Ack! M beat me to it! :(

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

A: It's not illegal for them to do that. They write the EULAs and the users agree to 'em.

B: The corporate keys are a weird loop hole and they are probably the solution that will be used by piraters

C: Even if the corporate keys aren't used by piraters, MS still has to release security patches that can be downloaded and run without the "windows update" utility. This means that cracks and patches will be used by the pirates.

D: It means more viruses for MS to deal with and take blame for.... sucks for them.

EDIT: As proof of 'A' I suggest everyone actually sit down and READ the Windows XP EULA. It is quite a piece of work if I do say so myself. It is a legally binding license and MS has far more lawyers and legal power than a pirate so I'm fairly certain these issues have been addressed.

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

I agree with M Krass and Tristan Lall. Microsoft doesn't own the hard drives and that would be destroying non-Microsoft property. If this story is true Microsoft will have even bigger issues than thier current security ones. The only thing they could legally do is inhibit the illegal copies of XP from working and not "damaging" the hard drive.

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

Microsoft will certainly not erase someone's hard disk data - well, at least not intentionally :cool: - and I really doubt they'll be much more strict than they are currently concerning SP1 and Windows Update.
Think about it; MS is the largest software company in the world - if they don't protect their software well enough, it's certainly not because they are not capable of it - they just don't want that to happen.
Microsoft'd rather have people using pirated Windows versions than any Linux variant, eh? :)

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

Microsoft will always bring us surprises, but I don't think this is true. Even if it is, I always have linux on my side:), I have to say, I AM SICK OF MICROSOFT!!!!

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

:D

I can just see Bill Gates' computer getting wiped ;) That'd make my day...

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

Regarding "A", there are certain flags in one of the installation files which dictate whether the user is presented with an EULA, and required to press <F8> to continue. If the user recieved installation media from someone other than Microsoft, and that media did not include the EULA, they never actually agreed to it. (Note that the licence is for the use of the software, not the media--you are allowed, and IT departments are encouraged, to customize .iso and similar files for rapid installations. A process called slipstreaming is typically used for this purpose.)

From here:
The person supplying the media might be in violation of an agreement, but this is quite likely immaterial to the person who just had data erased. For this reason, there is not necessarily any proof that an EULA was agreed upon, even if the software is being used.

While by Section 13 of the Windows XP Pro EULA (and similar sections in other EULAs, I'd imagine), Microsoft disclaims all liability, it is still subject to the discretion of a court--the court can choose to accept this provision, or nullify it, if it was determined to be unreasonable. (I'd call the above a pretty good reason to declare Microsoft liable, under certain circumstances--they would have willfully deleted data which they were not authorized to modify, by EULA or otherwise.)


As for "B", the corporate keys account for a large portion (perhaps a majority) of their business for XP Pro--it's not a weird loophole!

"C" is correct--the hassle involved with compromised systems spreading malicious code (and the resulting mess being blamed on "Micro$oft" and "the devil Bill Gates") isn't worth it. Patches need to work. (Service Packs are partially a collection of patches, but also include the major revisions to the OS. I'd expect them to keep fixing the holes with hotfixes, but hotfixes do not address the inherent problems with the code, nor make major changes.)

I'm not sure of the reasoning for "D", because people will still create viruses, either way. Microsoft supports RTM, SP1, SP1a, and (will support) SP2 versions of XP anyway--so any exploits addressed in SP2 will still have patches issued for SP1 and RTM variants. It really is more efficient for the virus writers to target vulnerabilities that affect the entire NT codebase, rather than focus on those that only target a particular flavour of XP.

He's right. (Though Microsoft is loath to admit it, "free" Windows is still a net gain for them, because it furthers their acceptance in the market--even with their dominant position, this is a reasonable thing for them to covet.)

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

(emphasis mine)

Wazzuh!?! Come again? It should be mentioned that EULAs have as yet to be tested in a court of law, and their binding legal ability is in *serious* question. Consider: the user buys the product, but only gets to read the EULA afterwards, by the time of which the user cannot take it back on the grounds that the user disagrees with the provisions in the EULA, -- forced compliance, if you will. Then consider the quasi-legally significant point that next to no one actually reads the blasted things. And MS could very well put in a provision that the user owes Bill their first born son (and for all I know that provision is lurking in there somewhere), and the user could agree to it with the supposedly "legally binding" EULA, -- yet no court of law would possibly hold such a proposition as valid. Ignore for a moment the huge negative publicity that Microsoft would undergo with such a move (and too the point that it is to Microsoft's advantage to patch even pirated copies). As a matter of pure legality, MS could not perform such a move. If they did, their EULA would come under serious scrutiny, which would be bad for their business practice. And, try to think how a judge could rule that MS had authority to erase or do anything harmful to the user's hard drive. MS would have to own it, but by running a piece of software, pirated or not, no ownership is transferred.

Edit: blasted! beated because of my woefully stringent editing standards. (okay, okay, ... I got distracted by something shiny. but I was editing)

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

Actually, with every version of windows XP the user (not necessarily the end user) must accept a license agreement. I'm not talking about the "f8" one you get when you accept the one from a disc install of XP but rather the one that you get to click "I agree" to when you first turn on that new computer. That license essentially says that you are responsible and held accountable for all actions taken in regards to the software on that computer and that if you want to return it all for a full refund then you should go for it (most people don't but that's a different story).

The real catch is if the pirate is held accountable under that license? The pirate didn't technically pay for that license, so is the pirate held accountable under it?

As for D. Most new viri replicate themselves using polymorphic code and such. When MS fails to patch infected machines it means that those machines are going to sit unpatched thus causing viri to have a prolonged existance. So when new users plug their machine in, it means a greater chance of infection for the new machine. Once again, sucks for MS.

BTW, I'm playing devil's advocate here. I use gentoo 2004.0 (built from stage 1).

EDIT: I'm almost willing to bet that an MS EULA will hold up in court based on the fact that MS has a legal team that I wouldn't dare want to take on. MS also has a lot of money to make sure their EULA's are enforced. As for them not being tested in court, I would have to disagree. I'm too lazy to hit up Thomas, greplaw, or findlaw for results right now but I'm fairly certain that some EULAs have been held up in court.

EDIT #2: I highly suggest you people start reading what you click "I agree" to. You seem to think that a EULA does not transfer ownership but ownership isn't the problem. How many viruses get released each year? MS doesn't take responsibility for data lost based on these viruses. What makes you think they are going to take responsibility for you losing data, esspecially when you are running a copy of their software you didn't pay for? They aren't required to supply patches to anyone if they chose not to, it would be suicide for them not to but they still don't have to. I don't see where you people are coming from on this one.

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

I imagine EULA's are more there for the sake of trying to protect Microsoft's (and whatever other company wrote the EULA for whatever software) butt when it comes to legal troubles later on from like, "Windows exposed my child to internet pornography; I'm sueing you in damages of 15 million CDN" (so $50 USD). Also, not so much to go and fine individual piraters, but to go after exceptional cases of mass distribution.

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

It has been rumored that software developers from large firms have created viruses, disguised like a legitimate program that will wipe out a users hard drive. Usually they put them on anonymous P2P networks. This is to scare downloaders into not downloading applications.

I can say for certain that Microsoft is not dumb enough to wipe out people’s hard drives. There would be lawsuits and bad press galore.

But I am almost certain that they will probably disable WinXP, if it detects that it is on an illegal system.

If you look here. You can see how much Microsoft wants to stop all illegal piracy of its products. But I think it is a lost cause. There will be always be a work around to it.

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

Hmm, I few weeks ago I heard that MS was going to give sp2 to everyone, even illegal versions, because they have had so many problems.
After some searching I found the article, and it turns out it was more than a few weeks ago,
http://computertimes.asia1.com.sg/ne...4,2292,00.html


Concerning EULAs, I don't know how legally binding they are anymore. Has anyone here ever read one BEFORE they installed the program? I remember my Dad arguing with Compuserve, back in the day. When they refered him to the EULA he responded with "Come on, You know nobody reads those things!" We got 3 months of free service from that.
Now, I know that one customer getting a little free service is nothing for them, but it does show that EULAs are ridiculous. I doubt that if it were to go to court, they same argument would be used that nobody reads them, and the jury would agree.

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

The argument that "no one reads them" seems outlandish if used in court, IMHO. My reasoning is thar you have to click the "I agree that I have read and understand the above terms and conditions" button. That button to me says you are getting involved with a contract. I'm not gonna claim this to be true because I'm a lazy bum and don't want to look up court results right now (and I gotta go to work in 30 minutes) but from what little I absorbed from my father (who is a retired business teacher) EULAs are pretty legally binding, much the same as any other contract. True, a judge does get to decide if the EULA will be honored in the end but given the fact that we are talking about an end user that isn't using a legal copy of windows, I'm willing to bet the judge is going to sign with Microsoft. Also, once again, MS has money. They have a lot of it too. Money buys you things in the legal system of the US. Anybody remember the OJ trial?

And again, what makes you think MS is going to take responsibility for damage done to your drive when you didn't pay for a legal copy of windows? They aren't obligated and don't take responsibility for damage done by any viri currently to LEGAL copies. So what makes you think they have to provide you with service for an illegal copy?

EDIT: I have read through a few EULA agreements: the one that came with Napster. The one that came with photoshop 7 and the windows 2000 pro EULA. Not to mention the whole of the GPL (which isn't really a EULA) I haven't read them word for word but I have skimmed over them enough to know that by using the software I'm ultimately responsible for what happens to my system, not the company that made the software.

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

The distinction is willful vs. accidental damage. Microsoft can disclaim liability for accidental damage (though the court may choose to not recognize it), but they cannot disclaim intentional damage. Proving it is/was intentional should be easy enough--so long as they can subpoena Microsoft to furnish the source code....

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

I would love to see this case tried because the first thing is that MS isn't going to give up source without a very long and drawn out fight. I point to SCO case. SCO isn't nearly as powerful as MS and they haven't shown any code yet. Secondly you are still talking about a pirate Vs a capitalist company. Under the current circumstance and media hype surrounding piracy and the fact that it is constantly portrayed in a bad light, no court or judge is likely to take a case like this serious. Also, intentional damage isn't being caused by Microsoft because you can't update a product you didn't pay for. The only person causing damage is the virus writer (I'm not gonna say if that is intentional or not, it's irrelevant). The fact of the matter is that MS is discouraging piracy of their products. Also, updates and such are a service, not a part of the product. I already brought up the point that the pirate didn't pay for the license so is the pirate entitled to the service that the license provides? (although the WinXP EULA doesn't provide a service for updates).

As per the movie/record industry deleting files form a hard drive. This is a different matter altogether. These people don't have the right to create malicious code just as much as I don't have that right to. I don't care if you have a devine purpose or not, you don't have the right to destory data on my systems without my permission. MS isn't destorying data though, they aren't releasing viruses they are only denying access to updates, which is understandable in my opinion.

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

To preface this post, I think that it has to be restated that the article alleges that Microsoft is planning to issue code that would render a user's hard drive unusable, if certain licencing conditions are not met. (I consider that possibility to be remote.) The allegation is therefore one of willful damage, rather than a mere witholding of service (which is justified, if not necessarily prudent).

Actually, you don't need to see the code from the start. Just have the court order a test of the software in question. A blacklisted CD key is used on a new XP installation, and SP2 installed. Repeat this test several times, (under the supervision of notaries public and computer experts) and analyze the results of the tests (to eliminate other causes of failure). If a predictable pattern of data damage results, it's a smoking gun--it would very possibly be enough to convince the court to subpoena it out of Microsoft (and/or to compel MS employees to testify about it).

Now it's not a perfect idea--the destructive code could have been written to make this difficult (e.g. randomize the damage). But it's a start.


You don't have to be a pirate to be affected--what if a corporate key was stolen (e.g. by ex-IT department personnel), and unbeknownst to the company, was distributed. Microsoft would have to ensure that it contacted the rightful owner of the software, issued them a new key, and ensured that traces of the old key had been removed (so that no hapless co-op student would use the wrong key on an upgrade, and destroy someone's workstation). All this, before even blacklisting the key. Failure to do that much could be considered negligence, if Microsoft had a duty to inform it's customer that it was about to do something drastic with that customer's key, which had the potential to do serious property damage as a result of normal use, and instruct them how to remedy the situation--irrespective of whether Microsoft were found culpable of sabotage for including the code in the first place.


The original article accuses Microsoft of doing just this--intentionally putting destructive code in their product, for the express purpose of destroying data, and possibly hardware. (Yes, you really can do serious damage to hardware with code--it isn't at all easy, but malicious firmware updates immediately come to mind.)

They'd never get away with it. If you don't believe me, just look at the anti-Microsoft climate that prevails in the U.S. these days--a handful of insignificant government employees (from a redundant department, but that's another discussion) recommend that Internet Explorer be put out to pasture, and lo and behold, media outlets take the opportunity to pick on Microsoft's errors, real and fabricated. Whether Microsoft is in the right or the wrong they'll be massacred in the press if they pull a stunt like that.

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

I think you guys are taking this a bit too seriously. Every illegal install has to come from a LEGAL version in the beginning. Therefore, if anyone re-formatted his comp, wouldn't it become "unusable" when he tried to reinstall?

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

EULAs are alot different than a contract.. A contract is signed and witnessed most of the time. Always singed by the person it is being given to tho. A EULA is a simple click of the mouse. There is no evidence to say who clicked the mouse. What if I bought my computer from small business, and they used a stolen key. Am I therefore resposible for the theft? Does my property need to be destroyed? Yes, a EULA is binding, but no, I do not think MS has the power to do this.

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

You stole the words right out of my mouth. That's cliche #3 today.... ANYWAY....

I wonder if there has been any court upholdings on the EULAs when it pertains to a 'click' of a mouse onto a button (and sometimes a little check box). As for your question based on the small business, I think that the purchaser will be fine, since any checking of serial numbers to see if they are valid is hard enough as it is, let alone one to a program that you don't have the CDs or DVDs for.

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

If Microsoft does decide to be an &#($7(#& and disable XP or something, I can bet that there are tons of clever programmers out there who will make a crack thru that. Eventually, the efforts are not worth for Microsoft to do such a thing. Moreover, they know for a fact that people will start using other operating systems if they do something like that. I feel Microsoft will commit suicide by trying to hurt their users(including illegal ones). It might lead to the end of Windows.

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

I call FUD on this article too...

There are many in the industry who are calling on Microsoft to allow illegal copies of Windows to be updated just as a legal copy would be. The thought being that Internet worms would be better controlled.

This article reminds me of the music industry and the fake copies of songs they put on the P2P networks. If you've never downloaded one, basicly it's the normal song for about 30 seconds and then they put in a series of very high pitched noises. The first time I heard it I was listening to the song with headphones turned up fairly high. When the screatching went off I nearly fell over and grasped my ears. I thought I had lost my hearing. I bet someday someone will injure their ears from the high pitched sounds. I hope that person starts a lawsuit with the people who are responsible for putting these ear damaging songs on the internet.

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

I wish, but nothing will lead to end of Windows. Even if they charge Windows for $1000 a copy, people will still pay it. The majority of Americans usually just accepts anything Microsoft does.

Microsoft is not dumb though. If they do this they risk angry hackers initiating DOS attacks at them, which will loose them even more money then just the pirated copies.

However in Longhorn they have put in new features that will make it harder for any pirated content to exist.

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

Ignorance of the law does not give one absolution from its governance.

If you unknowingly buy stolen property and the police later find out it's stolen property, they take it back. You don't get to keep it. Nobody cares that you were unaware or that you paid for it.

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

I think his question was based on will he get punnished for the theft.

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

If it were true that Service Pack 2 was to destroy hardware with illegal copies of an operating system, you would be held accountable for the action of running such software. You'd have to be, really, as there's not exactly a practical way for the SP2 download to identify your illegal software and investigate where it came from, right?

However, if you cannot conclusively prove that the OS was installed illegally prior to your use of it -- which you can't, as there's no evidence or record thereof -- you're probably going to be considered responsible in the eyes of the law.

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

It should be noted that the article claims that if you have an illegal copy of Windows your boot partition will be overwritten with garbage data. This is not the same as destroying hardware.

To the average consumer their computer is unusable, but to a skilled technician the data can be restored and a new operating system can be re-installed.

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

Isn't this sort of what the RIAA is doing? They would be making enemies with their own customers (as much a customer as an mp3 pirate is). I'm not saying M$ is the smartest company out there, but they at least are smart enough to know that if someone has windows on their computer (legal or no) they will not buy "Photoshop for apple." They will on the other hand, buy tons of Microsoft products, such as office, halo, and Flight Simulator. Microsoft knows how to keep a hold on a monopoly, and they won't let go any time soon.

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

Well, they changed the article--and now it makes a little more sense. To the average user, a damaged boot sector is a significant problem, but with a little experience, and the ability to load the drive up in another computer, it can easily be restored. (Heck, even a repair install of XP should be able to fix this....) Certainly, the hardware would remain functional.

So I can't be so sure that Microsoft won't try it, since there's no risk of data damage any longer. It could still cause downtime, though. That's not really grounds for a lawsuit (except in extreme circumstances), but it certainly is enough to annoy people significantly.

Actually, there is a Microsoft precedent for similar action--Office 2000, when installed with certain blacklisted keys, can't be properly updated to SR-1; the installation will proceed normally, but the programs themselves are set to quit immediately upon opening. Again, it's downtime, though not in such a drastic fashion.

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

since you didn't pay for it, the most M$ is liable for is $5. ;)

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

lol. Making money off of a free copy of windows.

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

I hate Micro$$$$oft also. Why doesn't Bill Gates just stop caring, since the interest rates from Micro-$oftMoney can pay for all of M$'s expenses. Since I don't have the finger strenght (and I don't want to repeat what some dummies called "Microsoft Lovers" will call "Propoganda"), I will link you to this site.

I like Linux. I would run linux, except that my games will not run on it, unless I get WINE. Even then, the Microsoft Software Cartel controls so much of the software industry, they will have specially designed products to not run on linux. I wish that Bill Gates had been convicted back in 1997, before he bought media corporations to publicize the Clinton affair.

Alright, now you know that I HATE Bill Gates and Microsoft, even though you probably also learned that I am left of Nader (this is not true though, though some people would think it when I talk about politics schmolitics).

In conclusion, there should be a FIRST-wide boycott of Microsoft products. Since many of us are "techies" anyway, we should start a FIRST software company, where we MAKE OUR OWN SOFTWARE. (i.e. The Brotherhood of FIRST Software, Inc.) Games, technical programs, operating systems, anything. In fact, this boycott could even drive Microsoft into Bankruptcy (Never underestimate the power of FIRST :D ).

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php...02-07-22&res=l
I think that completes my thought pretty well.

suneel112, Linux isn't your only option. Mac OS X can handle a much larger bunch of the latest games.

I hope I'm not the only one getting tired of Microsoft-flaming. I run Windows, Mac OS X, Linux, and FreeBSD.. they're each good for their uses.. (well.. Linux.. not so much.. actually :) Linux is a pretty thrown-together project and isn't very professional, fBSD on the other hand is quite nice). Also, I really respect Bill Gates.. you have to be pretty bright to create a multi-billion dollar company that stomps the rest of its competitors.

I'm getting tired of reading about people whining and complaining about Windows.. it's not like there are no other options! If you don't like it.. SWITCH!

</rant>

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

Propaganda? Maybe--but heavily biased, certainly. What are we supposed to do with this site? Laugh? Cry? Use it to topple Microsoft's evil domination of the proletariat?

That site, while offering some legitmate commentary on Microsoft's practices, completely fails to account for the fact that most of these practices are fairly normal, and accepted in most other sectors of the marketplace. If the quarrel is with large corporations in general, then several of their arguments are wholly legitimate ("predatory practices", for instance). If, as it seems, the quarrel is entirely with Microsoft, claims of "closed standards" and "backward incompatibility" and the like could be equally applied to numerous other computer-technology firms. Apple, for instance.

Also, the frequent claims of buggy software are foolish--look at Mac OS 10, and describe how the bugs in it's original release were fundamentally different from the bugs in XP. And many of them were fixed in 10.1 and 10.2 and XP SP1! While I admit that programmers can frequently be lazy, and quality assurance departments lax, It just isn't feasible for most software to be scrutinized to the level that we would wish (even in an ideal situation). With up to 50 million lines of code in a fully-featured operating system, and the need to bring it to market in a reasonable time, it is positively inevitable that bugs will exist--and when you do have the most popular products on the market, it is very likely that those same bugs will impact a greater number of people. And how big a project is an operating system, logistically? Thousands of programmers and quality testers are involved--you expect them to get it perfect, the first time?


Microsoft considers Linux to be a competing platform. It's not unreasonable to favour your own platform over that of a competitor. So what's the problem?

The other accusation is laughable. I hope that was an attempt at humour, like the solutions you propose.

Edit: Some clarification up there...

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

While true that OSX has had some bugs, the fixes were released fast and included other improvements, compared to just ONE service pack for XP so far. Also, it's the fact that the world is changing when it comes to computers is the problem. People now have power, and when that power is taken away by Microsoft and other corporations, then they angary. There's a difference between Jiffy Lube using those tactics since not many of us can go diagnose and fix a car, but many here can do that to a computer. Power for people is the change here.

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

I'd argue that many of us (mechanically-inclined FIRST-people) can fix a car (or at least change the oil), and do have the power to make an informed choice in both situations--the car, or the computer. If Jiffy Lube decides "our oil will henceforth only work with a Jiffy Lube filter", I can switch out of protest (Castrol, Havoline, Mac OS, Linux), or I can ask myself, "for what I do with it, is their new filter-oil combination better, or worse". If better, why switch? Is it so odious that their products only work with each other?

And didn't you have to pay $20 (USD) for 10.1? And $60 (USD) for 10.2? On top of whatever OS 10 is worth in the first place? Both XP and OS 10 offer free hotfixes. It is therefore difficult to see why two (extra-cost) incremental releases are somehow superior to one free service pack.

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

Nope, freedownload for the first one, shipping for the second.

What I mean with the car analogy is more on line with others. Microsoft sells what they offer, that's fine, but then act and provide serice like they are the only one, same as Jiffy Lube would do.

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

Yes, quite so.

Over writing the MBR (Master Boot Record) would just render the drive unbootable, meaning that if you have another harddrive with a bootable OS on it, you just swap their boot order. If not, just stick it in a working computer. ('skilled technician' is a little excessive, I could walk you through the trans-plant)

to repeat: All your files would still be there, but the motherboard doesn't know where the OS is.

(ps- has anyone found an article written by someone else that says the same thing? it wouldn't surprise me if this was a hoax.)

================================================== ====

A service pack is a big change, not a bug fix. It's a version increment. Software has been known to fail with a different service pack. Frequently, programs say "for Windows XP SP1" or whatever is apropriate.

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

Special care must be taken to write a game that supports multiple platforms. Many games by ID Software do this. Unfortunately, most game makers don't see Linux as being profitable. This is largely due to it's microscopic market share compared to MS Windows.

Think of it this way...
Let's say I designed a new gas pump system for fueling cars. It solves all the current problems including eliminating the problems with static electrricity at the pump making everyone safer. Unfortunately, instead of the usual circular opening, my connector is slightly larger and is square. We all know from the toys when we were toddlers that bigger squares can't fit in smaller circular holes.
I tried marketing the new device to car makers. Only 1 car maker is using the technology- Lamborghini. Now all I have to do is convince gas station owners to offer the new technology so everyone can enjoy it.

See the problem? The people who own gas stations don't want to support the very small base of users who own Lamborghinis. The end result? Everyone continues to use the inferior technology.

Microsoft has such a large installed Windows base that it's just not good business to develop for other platforms, especially 3rd ranked Linux. It doesn't matter whose technology is superior. All that matters is money, and right now developing for Linux abandons all that managers have learned in business school. It takes innovators like John Carmack from ID Software to develop on both Windows and Linux. He makes very little from developing for Linux because for him money is important, but innovating and advancing technology are foremost in his mind.

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

Maybe that's just for the media then--if you want it on CD, in a box. (The numbers came from a random online vendor, who still had them in stock--with Tiger on the way, they're likely not going to keep many around.)

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

Tristan Lall, in response to a response you made earlier, I am not mad at microsoft for not putting their software on linux. Since I am cynical, I am even surprised that they put it on Mac (although Microsoft was originally Apple's Software maker). What I was saying is that the Microsoft Cartel controls so much of the industry (either owned or through "contracts"), that they can "coax" "independent" software writers (who shouldn't care about what OS they write for) to work only for them (this was an issue in 1997).

I am not a mac lover either. Though i highly prefer macs over pcs, I know that the reason not all commercial software is on a mac is because of the exorbitant royalties involved. Microsoft has less direct royalties (smart), but has "contracts" (smart, but very dishonest).

P.S. I hate to argue with die-hard Microsoft Fans. You are entitled to your point of view and I am entitled to mine, even if my point of view is that everyone should write their own OS (which it isn't).

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

I wouldn't characterize myself as a die-hard Microsoft fan. They have good products (Windows 2000, 2003, VS .net 2002, 2003, etc.), and bad products (Windows Me, PhotoDraw 2000, etc.), and many others that fall somewhere in between. I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of any major company's competitive tendencies, but I can't fault Microsoft for being successful, by using standard commercial tactics. (Not to say that standard commercial tactics are always a good thing--but they are accepted in the business world.)

Speaking more generally, there's no need to be alarmist about it, or to do the "cool thing" (i.e. rebel against Microsoft)--just use what works for you. If that's a Mac, you'll pay more, but feel warm and fuzzy inside. If it's Linux, you'll pay less, but fight with it incessantly (if you enjoy conflict, this may be a positive thing...). If it's Microsoft--well, you know well enough what Microsoft represents. Make an informed choice, and feel free to change your mind, if you need to (i.e. no "Linux 4 evar").

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

I'd hate to tell you but the video game makers are joining the fray. I read about computer games that have programs designed to detect any type of devices that could be used for illegal copying and it just shuts down the installer. Also other games have been known to worsten the graphics if any devices are detected essentially destroying the experience. It's definately out there. Just not as prevelant as before. This is a hoaz. Remeber that one congressman said the same exact thing about destroying illegal software.

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

my father is a member of the windows xp support team. he says that windows XP SP2 will deactivate your windows if you don't have a valid key. so if you don't have a valid one, you're screwed if you install sp2 on your machine. :ahh:

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

Good to know.. But considering I bought my laptop off of ebay with Windows XP already installed, I don't know if I have a legal copy.. Now do I?

Any way to check on these kinds of things?

And, the converstion going on in the majority of this thread is about WindowsXP SP2 "bugs" and it's reliability as a upgrade, and not software issues that are intended to kill a non valid copy.

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

Is there a difference between a 'vaild' and 'legal' key?

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

yes, the difference is that MS has your info on file, that you bought a copy of thier software, and the key you are suppost to be activated with.

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

So they would get you if you bought a copy and registered with a different key. If you never bought a copy in the first place, then they don't have any records, correct? So they can't catch those people?

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

if you don't activate then you're fine, unless they verify with the new windows update now,i think my father mentioned that.

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

um, how does one start one of these discussions anyway?

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

Just found this on Slashdot:

Oops.

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

Go to the forum you want to put the discussion in and click the "New Thread" button. It will be in the same places as the "New post" button in a thread. :) Hope that helps.

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

Well, you should have stick on your laptop which says "Windows XP Home/Professional Edition" and also the key for it. Of course, it could be a legal copy which was bought and installed legally and the sticker just wasn't put on, but...

And if XP was factory installed, then it will definetly have the sticker.

And, of course, you could always just get SP2 to find out... :yikes:

Seemed a fair enough point to me, but hey, whatever... :)

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

There are millions of people who use Windows in the world... If they decided to launch this kind of project to track every single key and the person/people who use them, it would take for ever. Plus, some people keep on upgrading their software from previous versions of windows.

Plus, to catch these people, wouldn't they need some kind of warrent to get their IP addresses and breach some kind of law if they needed to do this? If they wanted to do this, they'll have to do what the record company did going up to court and spending millions to just to get a few IP addresses to sue them for downloading music, but in this case, using the fake codes. I'm sure they could just get the information off the internet, but that would be illegal for them because of the privacy act, right?

Doing the SP2 freeze up is cheaper and easier to impliment for Microsoft. The SP2 is just a short term solution. People who can find flaws in Window would just continue to try and work their way through SP2 and eventually crack it someday. This is just a short term solution for Microsoft to try and lower the piracy stuff for now.

Re: XP Service Pack 2 Bomb
 

it just occurred to me, that it isn't the key that microsoft checks on a valid registered copy of windows, it's the PID (product ID).