carlton68 Posted August 11, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 11, 2004 Thanks. Didn't know that one. Before I always had these many uninstall info on the windows update topics. Difficult to get rid of them. Now they have a checkbox so they won't appear anymore. Good. I think many endusers requested not to see this by default. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlton68 Posted August 12, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 12, 2004 LaoHuLi said:Thanks Carlton68. Well it takes a lot longer to read the deployment guides than to D/L the file. It will be interesting to see how well it integrates with a) installed beta versions on machines that the beta version conflicted c) slipstreamed installs I create. Should be *fun*. (Why do I always have the premonition that I am going to learn way more about the latest Windows update, than I ever anticipated:banghead: ) LaoHuLi, at least it's easy to create these WinXP setup CDs with SP2 included. Found a 'how-to' in an compouter magazine, so even I could do that. Only tried if it boots up, didn't do a full setup. Did not find any more problems with SP2 yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 12, 2004 Report Share Posted August 12, 2004 On boot legged copies of Microsoft Windows, Microsoft checks the legality of your copy - if it appears to be a copy - it will not do the updates. That is why I reccommend the full download without checks. Reading Microsoft's download instructions - they make it clear they are the only authorized place where a person is suppose to get this update. It concludes by saying that if the upgrade is obtained thru any other means but from this site at Microsoft - one is suppose to report this to the anti-piracy hotline. What is strange is that the Bangkok Post a few daya ago, claimed that this checking policy will not be used on this update. Right now, I am in Bangkok, connected via the internet to one of my computers in the states - - using the US computer to connect to the Microsoft site so as to download SP2 onto the US computer while I right part of this comment on the US computer and follow up with an edit from Bangkok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 12, 2004 Report Share Posted August 12, 2004 MightyMouse said:On boot legged copies of Microsoft Windows, Microsoft checks the legality of your copy - if it appears to be a copy - it will not do the updates. That is why I reccommend the full download without checks. [color:"red"]Perhaps you could explain to us lowly geeks how this can be done. I would be fascinated to know.[/color] Reading Microsoft's download instructions - they make it clear they are the only authorized place where a person is suppose to get this update. It concludes by saying that if the upgrade is obtained thru any other means but from this site at Microsoft - one is suppose to report this to the anti-piracy hotline. [color:"red"] bullfeathers.......... it is a secuity fix available in many places, no matter of piracy. And it CERTAINLY does NOT have to be installed from the MS site. This is the final version that I have had on disk for months, and installed from disc on dozens of machines. There is NO issue of legal or illegal original XP copies in this update. Pure urban myth. In fact the link that was provided is for those wishing to copy it to disk for later install or remote install on networks. The regular version will be put out shortly as a 'critical update' and installed automatically for all those that have enabled 'update service' on their machines. This is regardless of the original status of their install copy. [/color] What is strange is that the Bangkok Post a few daya ago, claimed that this checking policy will not be used on this update. Right now, I am in Bangkok, connected via the internet to one of my computers in the states - - using the US computer to connect to the Microsoft site so as to download SP2 onto the US computer while I right part of this comment on the US computer and follow up with an edit from Bangkok. What a waste of resources. Just install the damn thing. Don't worry, there will be another critical update to install on the first Tuesday of next month (or sooner) And it still can't check to see if your copy is "legal" or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlton68 Posted August 12, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 12, 2004 Hi, with SP1 it did check your registration key or serial or what it's named. One of the most used ones was starting FCKGW-... and SP1 didn't install. Howerver there were keychangers around that gave you valid unblocked keys that SP1 didn't recognize as 'pirated'. Looks like SP2 is not going further with checks. Just a guess, but whoever was able to install SP1 will be able to install SP2. I doubt that M$ does check diffent when you go via M$ update. Many people would have been prevented from updates and this wouldn't go unnoticed. And about M$ the only source for the complete file: I wouldn't download it from any dodgy site anyway. Many computer magazines already announced they will have SP2 on their CDs in the magazine with the next edition. This will for sure go together with an article about the new features in SP2, and possible problems as well. IMHO this is for normal users the best way to get SP2. No need to go online for hours (and servers with M$ maybe overloaded anyway), you get the full package with explanations and you're done within 15 minutes. Downloading the complete file is for professionals, power users, and of course cheap show offs like me :: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 12, 2004 Report Share Posted August 12, 2004 OK, here is the deal AFAIK ...... Win update can NOT check your serial number ..... this I know because I have changed the numbers on installs and update does not see any difference. It can ONLY check 1) that the copy has been activated (there is a file in SAM section of the registry and a value ) This file can be modified by those who know what to do. 2) Win update can also check what updates and hotfixes have been applied, (unless of course you go in and delte those registry entries manually, then it has no idea what it did before. Most people confuse the parts of the ACTIVATION with the registration with the update (which puts entries into the registry.) Update does NOT have the ability to detect a serial number of a machine that has has been activated correctly. Here is how activation works. On the first install of XP you enter a valid registation number ......... ANY valid registration number. After the install, you are prompted to a) activate XP and register XP Activation is necessary on 'almost' all installs or the system will fail to boot on day 31. One of course could keep reinstalling every 30 days and avoid it altogether. On the original install XP makes up a 'actvation designator' by assigning arbitrary values to 6 major pieces of hardware in you machine, based on a 'secret' M$ algorythm. When you 'activate' this 'value' is assigned to your machine and the serial # you entered as a unique id. (there is a warning from M$ that all upgrades should be done to a new machine *before* activation. This value is now in YOUR operating system ............. not stored (AFAAK) at M$. (or at least that is official M$ policy... note: that is NOT the policy with "Registration" which is a totally different and optional animal. If you change more that 6 pieces of hardware within 6 month period in your machine, YOUR assigned value will not match and XP will refuse to boot. Or at the least will tell you to reinstall and then will ask you to activate............. that's is where the problem lies as an 'activation value' has already been assigned to the registry. A complete format and reinstall will wipe it all of course, but it's damn inconvenient. Now this has been a major pain for those wishing to install a new hard drive or change a bad Motherboard, there are some workarounds but most ain't worth the time or energy. So what is one trying to do......... install the same copy on different machines ............... or a machine that has been majorly changed.............. difficult, but not impossible. In fact this week I had a machine come in that a client had completely trashed the hard drive. He didn't have the 'Valid XP Sticker'with the legal Serial # because it was a brand name machine and the sticker was probably on some manual that had been tossed. (they are supposed to be affixed to the machine). A call to M$, explained and they gave me a 'NEW' registration # so I could activate, with no problem, or hassle at all. I have done similar for other machines that got major rebuilts.... have never been refused. So lets get rid of the urban myth that M$ is tracking everyone. They are simply trying to insure that the single liscence product that you paid for is used under the terms that you paid for it. Anything else is stealing. Go buy a multi licence. If you don't want to tracked, don't 'register' and stay away from M$ installed spyware that comes on XP. (Yup, they do it. Just get it off like any other spyware) And quit worrying about the update service, it may be the only thing that keeps your OS running............ whether you original XP was legit..... or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlton68 Posted August 12, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 12, 2004 LaoHuLi, the ones using pirated XP are mostly using the corporate version of Win XP Pro. These only need a valid corporate key, no activation neccessary (as you for sure know). Imagine all computers with a major company have to be activated after installation. A real nightmare. And trust me, SP1 did check something as it wouldn't install when the corporate key was FCKGW-..., but installed once the key was changed. This is for real, M$ did it with SP1. Now if SP2 does the same check or not I don't know. I'm not gonna change my key just to find out. In fact I still have to update a laptop, I might try it there. Maybe over the weekend. Users that have an activated version of XP shouldn't have any problem with SP2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 13, 2004 Report Share Posted August 13, 2004 What you say is quite true IME. There are also differences between legit copies that designate between OEM and Retail and prevent cross installs in one direction only and a least 3 versions of the Corp editions including an early one for developers and a VLC (volume Licenced corporate) and sompletely different install methods depending on if they are remote, networked, attended or unattended installs. Great geeky stuff to play with. :: Well must go and install a clean version on my... errr...a clients computer now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlton68 Posted August 17, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 17, 2004 Hi guys, until now I had only a few minor problems with SP2. DivXPlayer worked only after reinstalling (german SP2). And the ortions to stop security center from nagging me were a bit hidden. Otherwise still ok. Well, did not test all the programs I have and not all of the external connections. M$ released a list with programs that might have problems with SP2. This list is available here Read right, might have problems. Don't cry if you don't have any problems. What I find embarrassing for M$ is that their own programs are to be found on that list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
check_bin_krap Posted August 17, 2004 Report Share Posted August 17, 2004 carlton68 said:What I find embarrassing for M$ is that their own programs are to be found on that list. I fully agree. They have had problems coordinating their staff a long time. Its not uncommon that one SP fixed a problem, next undid all that work.. Another annoying thing is that a service pack often resets critical values in the registry which you have changed to get some function to work. Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.