Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Confused over validation

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
June 15, 2005 8:07:30 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Hi all

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

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

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

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

Is this the way it's supposed to work?

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

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

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

--
Nightowl

More about : confused validation

Anonymous
June 15, 2005 8:07:31 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

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

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



--
Regards,

Richard Urban

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


"Nightowl" <owl@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
news:W$4ZQcHyQEsCFwSQ@black.hole...
> Hi all
>
> I've only today visited the download center at microsoft.com and come up
> against the dreaded validation for the first time.
>
> My copy of XP passes and for the rest of that session I "stay valid",
> (i.e. if I try another download I get the "Genuine Windows" banner and
> am offered the download immediately).
>
> But I am confused over what happens between sessions. The info on the
> Microsoft site says that once validated, a download key is placed on
> your computer to speed up access in the future. I thought this meant the
> validation would be persistent? But it doesn't seem to be.
>
> If I use IE and visit the site again, I am again asked to validate.
> Should this happen? When I check the box to validate now and continue, a
> page flashes by too quickly for me to really see what's there, but it
> looks like some screenshots of IE? Then it flashes back to the download
> page and tells me I am genuine.
>
> Is this the way it's supposed to work?
>
> If I use Firefox to validate and then visit the site a second time, I
> have to go through the whole validation procedure again, including
> running the checker, pasting in the key it comes up with, etc.
>
> I thought it would work like some kind of cookie on your machine so that
> once validated it would be recognised as genuine every time you visit
> the site. *Something* is definitely happening in IE, but the site is
> still asking me to start the validation process. In Firefox whatever it
> is is not "sticking".
>
> I'm really confused. Can anyone tell me how this is meant to work? Have
> we really got to go through this procedure every time? (Yes, I know it's
> not mandatory at the mo, but they say it may be in the future.)
>
> --
> Nightowl
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 8:07:31 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Nightowl wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I've only today visited the download center at microsoft.com and come
> up against the dreaded validation for the first time.
>
> My copy of XP passes and for the rest of that session I "stay valid",
> (i.e. if I try another download I get the "Genuine Windows" banner and
> am offered the download immediately).
>
> But I am confused over what happens between sessions. The info on the
> Microsoft site says that once validated, a download key is placed on
> your computer to speed up access in the future. I thought this meant
> the validation would be persistent? But it doesn't seem to be.
>
> If I use IE and visit the site again, I am again asked to validate.
> Should this happen? When I check the box to validate now and
> continue, a page flashes by too quickly for me to really see what's
> there, but it looks like some screenshots of IE? Then it flashes back
> to the download page and tells me I am genuine.
>
> Is this the way it's supposed to work?
>
> If I use Firefox to validate and then visit the site a second time, I
> have to go through the whole validation procedure again, including
> running the checker, pasting in the key it comes up with, etc.
>
> I thought it would work like some kind of cookie on your machine so
> that once validated it would be recognised as genuine every time you
> visit the site. *Something* is definitely happening in IE, but the
> site is still asking me to start the validation process. In Firefox
> whatever it is is not "sticking".
>
> I'm really confused. Can anyone tell me how this is meant to work?
> Have we really got to go through this procedure every time? (Yes, I
> know it's not mandatory at the mo, but they say it may be in the
> future.)

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

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

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
Related resources
June 16, 2005 12:55:24 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Richard Urban wrote on Wed, 15 Jun 2005:

>If it were me (and I'll bet that many are glad it isn't) I would make people
>validate each time. This would prevent them from taking the validation token
>and using it on a machine that has a pirated copy of Windows XP installed on
>it.
>
>And yeah! I would also be known as "the hanging judge"!


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

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

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

Thanks.

--
Nightowl
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 12:55:25 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

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

--
Regards,

Richard Urban

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


"Nightowl" <owl@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
news:p Rv$rBOseIsCFwT0@black.hole...
> Richard Urban wrote on Wed, 15 Jun 2005:
>
>>If it were me (and I'll bet that many are glad it isn't) I would make
>>people
>>validate each time. This would prevent them from taking the validation
>>token
>>and using it on a machine that has a pirated copy of Windows XP installed
>>on
>>it.
>>
>>And yeah! I would also be known as "the hanging judge"!
>
>
> But it's okay to have a pirated copy of any Windows apart from XP and
> 2000, according to Microsoft.
>
> Thanks for your opinion, anyway. Here are a couple of mine, though I
> prefer to call them friendly suggestions:
>
> Since you replied only to the last three lines of my post, that was all
> you needed to quote, not the whole thing. And please do not post quotes
> below your sig separator, since everything under that gets removed when
> replying.
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> Nightowl
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 3:28:03 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

I'm seeing the same thing you are. However, this is "normal". The ActiveX control is already installed on your computer. This is still a work in progress.

--
Doug Knox, MS-MVP Windows Media Center\Windows Powered Smart Display\Security
Win 95/98/Me/XP Tweaks and Fixes
http://www.dougknox.com
--------------------------------
Per user Group Policy Restrictions for XP Home and XP Pro
http://www.dougknox.com/xp/utils/xp_securityconsole.htm
--------------------------------
Please reply only to the newsgroup so all may benefit.
Unsolicited e-mail is not answered.

"Nightowl" <owl@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message news:W$4ZQcHyQEsCFwSQ@black.hole...
> Hi all
>
> I've only today visited the download center at microsoft.com and come up
> against the dreaded validation for the first time.
>
> My copy of XP passes and for the rest of that session I "stay valid",
> (i.e. if I try another download I get the "Genuine Windows" banner and
> am offered the download immediately).
>
> But I am confused over what happens between sessions. The info on the
> Microsoft site says that once validated, a download key is placed on
> your computer to speed up access in the future. I thought this meant the
> validation would be persistent? But it doesn't seem to be.
>
> If I use IE and visit the site again, I am again asked to validate.
> Should this happen? When I check the box to validate now and continue, a
> page flashes by too quickly for me to really see what's there, but it
> looks like some screenshots of IE? Then it flashes back to the download
> page and tells me I am genuine.
>
> Is this the way it's supposed to work?
>
> If I use Firefox to validate and then visit the site a second time, I
> have to go through the whole validation procedure again, including
> running the checker, pasting in the key it comes up with, etc.
>
> I thought it would work like some kind of cookie on your machine so that
> once validated it would be recognised as genuine every time you visit
> the site. *Something* is definitely happening in IE, but the site is
> still asking me to start the validation process. In Firefox whatever it
> is is not "sticking".
>
> I'm really confused. Can anyone tell me how this is meant to work? Have
> we really got to go through this procedure every time? (Yes, I know it's
> not mandatory at the mo, but they say it may be in the future.)
>
> --
> Nightowl
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 4:29:12 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Richard Urban wrote:

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

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


--
Get Microsoft PowerToys for Windows XP here:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/...
"A must-have for your Toy Operating System"
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 4:35:35 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Nightowl wrote:

> Richard Urban wrote on Wed, 15 Jun 2005:
>
>>If it were me (and I'll bet that many are glad it isn't) I would make
>>people validate each time. This would prevent them from taking the
>>validation token and using it on a machine that has a pirated copy of
>>Windows XP installed on it.
>>
>>And yeah! I would also be known as "the hanging judge"!
>
>
> But it's okay to have a pirated copy of any Windows apart from XP and
> 2000, according to Microsoft.
>
> Thanks for your opinion, anyway. Here are a couple of mine, though I
> prefer to call them friendly suggestions:
>
> Since you replied only to the last three lines of my post, that was all
> you needed to quote, not the whole thing. And please do not post quotes
> below your sig separator, since everything under that gets removed when
> replying.
>
> Thanks.
>
He can't help it, without putting in a little effort. A small effort, yes,
but for some of the people around here, "effort" is something they don't
believe in.

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


--
Get Microsoft PowerToys for Windows XP here:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/...
"A must-have for your Toy Operating System"
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 5:39:31 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Nightowl" <owl@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
news:W$4ZQcHyQEsCFwSQ@black.hole...
> Hi all
>
.....
> But I am confused over what happens between sessions. The info on the
> Microsoft site says that once validated, a download key is placed on
> your computer to speed up access in the future. I thought this meant the
> validation would be persistent? But it doesn't seem to be.
>


Why should it be? If they discover a widely used pirated registration after
you've used the updates one they should just let you continue to get the
updates?
If the Police discover you using the car you use but stole months ago they
should just let you continue using it because you'd started to use it.?
That'd work and be reasonable too?



.......

>
> --
> Nightowl
June 16, 2005 7:37:42 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Alan Smith wrote on Thu, 16 Jun 2005:

>"Nightowl" <owl@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
>news:W$4ZQcHyQEsCFwSQ@black.hole...

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

>Why should it be?

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

>If they discover a widely used pirated registration after
>you've used the updates one they should just let you continue to get the
>updates?

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

>If the Police discover you using the car you use but stole months ago they
>should just let you continue using it because you'd started to use it.?
>That'd work and be reasonable too?

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

--
Nightowl
June 16, 2005 7:58:18 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Richard Urban wrote on Wed, 15 Jun 2005:

[Post re-ordered to make sense]

[Nightowl wrote:]

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

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

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

--
Nightowl
June 16, 2005 8:15:37 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

NoStop wrote on Thu, 16 Jun 2005:

Nightowl wrote:

>> Since you replied only to the last three lines of my post, that was all
>> you needed to quote, not the whole thing. And please do not post quotes
>> below your sig separator, since everything under that gets removed when
>> replying.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>He can't help it, without putting in a little effort. A small effort, yes,
>but for some of the people around here, "effort" is something they don't
>believe in.

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

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

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

Duly noted, thank you :-)

--
Nightowl
June 16, 2005 8:35:46 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

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

>I'm seeing the same thing you are. However, this is "normal". The
>ActiveX control is already installed on your computer. This is still a
>work in progress.

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

--
Nightowl
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 7:29:22 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Nightowl wrote:
> NoStop wrote on Thu, 16 Jun 2005:
>
> Nightowl wrote:
>
>>> Since you replied only to the last three lines of my post, that was all
>>> you needed to quote, not the whole thing. And please do not post quotes
>>> below your sig separator, since everything under that gets removed when
>>> replying.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>> He can't help it, without putting in a little effort. A small effort,
>> yes,
>> but for some of the people around here, "effort" is something they don't
>> believe in.
>
>
> Hmm, I'd heard (since I've never used the thing) that OE encouraged
> top-posting, but until I came here I'd never seen this pasting quotes
> under the sig separator in any group. Surely that's down to the user?
>
> As for effort, in order to reply to him, I had to cut and paste quotes,
> edit the quote depth and re-order the whole thing so it read coherently.
> If he continues to make it that much of a job, I can't imagine many
> people will bother.

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

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

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

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

--
Global Fund for Mergers and Acquisitions
1203 Foley Square

Please followup in newsgroup.
E-mail address is invalid due to spam-control.
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 7:29:23 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

.... et al. wrote:

> The problem is that for many people it will be too hard to bother to
> try another newsclient then OE. :-(
>
> To me, it seems like an ovious example of Micros~1 *again* playing
> dirty with the competition, this time by singlehandedly changing a
> longstanding usenet convention.

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

Conventions change, and are the rallying cry of conformists.

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

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

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

To each his own. Of course you can always lobby for you countries
government to regulate the USENET posts on the LOCAL ISPs news servers.
How would you like that? If you wouldn't, then learn to live with the
FACT that how a person posts their posts is their decision, and other
than trying to rationally explain why you believe bottom-posting is
better for you than top-posting, bitching about it will accomplish
nothing.

I used to mainly top-post when replying to an entire post, though I
inline-posted when replying to different points in the same post. What
turned me to bottom-posting when not inline-posting wasn't some a**hole
bitchin' and whinin' about top-posters, or the traditional values of
bottom-posting, but someone that rationally explained why they
bottom-posted.

In the end, there is really nothing you can do about how other people
post, other than lobbying your government to censor the USENET on your
country's ISP nntp servers, and bitchin' about only makes you look like
a netiquette nagger.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 7:29:24 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

kurttrail wrote:

> ... et al. wrote:
>
>
>>The problem is that for many people it will be too hard to bother to
>>try another newsclient then OE. :-(
>>
>>To me, it seems like an ovious example of Micros~1 *again* playing
>> dirty with the competition, this time by singlehandedly changing a
>>longstanding usenet convention.
>
>
> Go hawk saving your "traditional values" to your church.
>
> Conventions change, and are the rallying cry of conformists.
>
>
>>The result is that when less knowledgable users ventures out and tries
>>to use a different newsreader then OE, they notices that *it seems*
>>not to work right because text is mysteriously dissappearing. So they
>>will return to the fold of being OE-lusers where *as long as
>>everybody uses OE* it looks fine (well, in that backwards top-posting
>>way).
>
>
> LOL! And many people think that bottom posting is ass-kissing the post
> you are replying to.
>
>
>>What is sad is that some high-volume posters in here, very
>>knowledgable and helpfull persons, supposedly unpaid my Micros~1, not
>>only gladly uses this broken newsclient like this, but in fact
>>encourages others to do the same. :-(
>>
>
>
> To each his own. Of course you can always lobby for you countries
> government to regulate the USENET posts on the LOCAL ISPs news servers.
> How would you like that? If you wouldn't, then learn to live with the
> FACT that how a person posts their posts is their decision, and other
> than trying to rationally explain why you believe bottom-posting is
> better for you than top-posting, bitching about it will accomplish
> nothing.
>
> I used to mainly top-post when replying to an entire post, though I
> inline-posted when replying to different points in the same post. What
> turned me to bottom-posting when not inline-posting wasn't some a**hole
> bitchin' and whinin' about top-posters, or the traditional values of
> bottom-posting, but someone that rationally explained why they
> bottom-posted.
>
> In the end, there is really nothing you can do about how other people
> post, other than lobbying your government to censor the USENET on your
> country's ISP nntp servers, and bitchin' about only makes you look like
> a netiquette nagger.
>

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

Steve
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 7:55:38 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Steve N. wrote:

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

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

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

Live and let live.

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

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 7:55:39 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

kurttrail wrote:

> Steve N. wrote:
>
>
>>The problem I see is it's the same OE users who top post (including a
>>lot of MVPs) who complain that repliers don't quote what they're
>>replying to. It's not about netiquette or standards, it's about doing
>>what works. Top posting with OE and using a sig does not work to
>>retain quoted material in a discussion when many others do not use OE.
>
>
> And you sign every post with "Steve," but don't have it formatted as a
> proper sig.
>
> Does it bother me, no. But we all do something that somebody else
> thinks is not the proper way of doing things.

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

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

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

Steve
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 8:43:46 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Steve N. wrote:
> kurttrail wrote:
>> And you sign every post with "Steve," but don't have it formatted as
>> a proper sig.
>>
>> Does it bother me, no. But we all do something that somebody else
>> thinks is not the proper way of doing things.
>
> It's not proper vs improper in my mind and that's not what I intended
> to imply.
>
>>
>> Live and let live.
>>
>> And I agree with your post. Some of my MVP friends in this group,
>> are dyed-in-the-wool top posters. Many, if not most of them have
>> been posting to the USENET much longer than I have, and have read
>> every argument, both pro and con, over and over again. They choose
>> to top post. Oh well!
>>
>
> I don't mind top posting in the least. What I mind is not being able
> to reply to a top posted OE message with a sig and keep the previous
> qouted material without manually copying and pasting it.

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

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 8:43:47 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

kurttrail wrote:

> Steve N. wrote:
>
>>kurttrail wrote:
>>
>>>And you sign every post with "Steve," but don't have it formatted as
>>>a proper sig.
>>>
>>>Does it bother me, no. But we all do something that somebody else
>>>thinks is not the proper way of doing things.
>>
>>It's not proper vs improper in my mind and that's not what I intended
>>to imply.
>>
>>
>>>Live and let live.
>>>
>>>And I agree with your post. Some of my MVP friends in this group,
>>>are dyed-in-the-wool top posters. Many, if not most of them have
>>>been posting to the USENET much longer than I have, and have read
>>>every argument, both pro and con, over and over again. They choose
>>>to top post. Oh well!
>>>
>>
>>I don't mind top posting in the least. What I mind is not being able
>>to reply to a top posted OE message with a sig and keep the previous
>>qouted material without manually copying and pasting it.
>
>
> I just cut the sig.

I don't have the option of doing that.

> With OE Quotefix it is done automatically anyway
> with a properly formatted sig line.
>

That's what I understand.

Steve
June 17, 2005 3:26:04 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

kurttrail wrote on Thu, 16 Jun 2005:

>I used to mainly top-post when replying to an entire post, though I
>inline-posted when replying to different points in the same post. What
>turned me to bottom-posting when not inline-posting wasn't some a**hole
>bitchin' and whinin' about top-posters, or the traditional values of
>bottom-posting, but someone that rationally explained why they
>bottom-posted.

I don't like top-posting but my main complaint was about this sticking
quotes under the sig separator. That's not bitchin' and whinin' but for
a rational reason -- because in newsreaders other than OE, the signature
and everything below it is stripped out when the user goes to reply.

People will of course do as they please, but those who've only ever used
OE may not have been aware of this, so I think it's fair to bring it up.

--
Nightowl
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 3:26:05 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Nightowl wrote:
> kurttrail wrote on Thu, 16 Jun 2005:
>
>> I used to mainly top-post when replying to an entire post, though I
>> inline-posted when replying to different points in the same post.
>> What turned me to bottom-posting when not inline-posting wasn't some
>> a**hole bitchin' and whinin' about top-posters, or the traditional
>> values of bottom-posting, but someone that rationally explained why
>> they bottom-posted.
>
> I don't like top-posting but my main complaint was about this sticking
> quotes under the sig separator. That's not bitchin' and whinin' but
> for a rational reason -- because in newsreaders other than OE, the
> signature and everything below it is stripped out when the user goes
> to reply.

I don't think the "quote" that is a part of Crusty's sig is meant to be
repeated in reply to his post.

> People will of course do as they please, but those who've only ever
> used OE may not have been aware of this, so I think it's fair to
> bring it up.

I wasn't replying to you, but to ... et al, the "... et al. wrote:" at
the top of my post.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 3:26:05 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Nightowl wrote:

> kurttrail wrote on Thu, 16 Jun 2005:
>
>
>>I used to mainly top-post when replying to an entire post, though I
>>inline-posted when replying to different points in the same post. What
>>turned me to bottom-posting when not inline-posting wasn't some a**hole
>>bitchin' and whinin' about top-posters, or the traditional values of
>>bottom-posting, but someone that rationally explained why they
>>bottom-posted.
>
>
> I don't like top-posting but my main complaint was about this sticking
> quotes under the sig separator. That's not bitchin' and whinin' but for
> a rational reason -- because in newsreaders other than OE, the signature
> and everything below it is stripped out when the user goes to reply.
>
> People will of course do as they please, but those who've only ever used
> OE may not have been aware of this, so I think it's fair to bring it up.
>

That's the point, people who use only OE don't see it as a problem and
we're apparently wasting our breath. Oh well...

Steve
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 6:11:31 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

.... et al. wrote:

> To tell you a secret, i'm not too thrilled about Thunderbird myself.
>
> I've been meaning to try out Gravity, Agent, xNews and some others,
> and hopefully get comfy with one of them. For varios reasons i've
> managed to keep putting it off.
>
> But fortunately at least there exists many alternatives one can choose
> between. It's not like one must use OE if one doesn't like
> Thunderbird. :-)

Agent is a very good newsreader for downloading from binary newsgroups.
And OE with some addins, like OE quotefix is one of the best text-based
newsreaders I've ever tried.

You don't agree, and no one is forcing you to use it.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 8:51:45 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

In my previous post i made a sidehand remark about top-posting. Try not
to become to concerned with that, that was not my main point, ok.

kurttrail wrote:

> ... et al. wrote:
>
>>The problem is that for many people it will be too hard to bother to
>>try another newsclient then OE. :-(
>>
>>To me, it seems like an ovious example of Micros~1 *again* playing
>> dirty with the competition, this time by singlehandedly changing a
>>longstanding usenet convention.
>
> Go hawk saving your "traditional values" to your church.
> Conventions change, and are the rallying cry of conformists.

Sure, for example fewer and fewer people complain about signatures that
exceed the old convention of a two-line maximum (perhaps depending on
the groups you lurk in). In todays internet it is becoming an archaic
convention that more and more *users decide* to disregard. I have no
problems with such changes. (and anyhow in wellbehaving newsclients they
will be auto-snipped on next reply, won't they? ;-/ )

However when one major software-developer singlesidedly implements some
convention-change for all its users, in an open standard, to gain an
unfair advantage over other software-developers, and with the impact it
is bound to have with them distributing their software as part of an
ubiquitous operating system, it is something i do dislike.

Imposed conformism for sure, but from Micros~1's side not mine.

There is nothing stopping Micros~1 from devising a propriaty protocol,
say msnews:, that is using some other then the wellknown port 119,
developing software for it and convince people to use that instead of
Usenet over the open Network News Transport Protcol. Maybe i will use
also that, the same as i am currently using their OS.

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

Sure, peoples views and opinions will differ, but the 'top-posting' is a
sidetrack, please don't let it distract you too much. The main
discussion is about the way OE puts quoted test below the users signaure
delimiter. I offered an explanation, my theory, as to why the OE Dev.
Team is doing this.

>>What is sad is that some high-volume posters in here, very
>>knowledgable and helpfull persons, supposedly unpaid my Micros~1, not
>>only gladly uses this broken newsclient like this, but in fact
>>encourages others to do the same. :-(
>
> To each his own. Of course you can always lobby for you countries
> government to regulate the USENET posts on the LOCAL ISPs news servers.
> How would you like that?

Well, /my/ goverment already does pressure the ISP's to selfsensor and
filter certain kinds of usenet-posts (of the darker kind), or else this
will be legislated in the near future. Hard to argue against that, but
of course then the slippery-slope has begun.

> If you wouldn't, then learn to live with the
> FACT that how a person posts their posts is their decision, and other
> than trying to rationally explain why you believe bottom-posting is
> better for you than top-posting, bitching about it will accomplish
> nothing.

Are you still on about the top-posting thingy? I was writing about the
fact that i don't understand why intelligent people with open eyes use
software that put quoted text below the sig-delimiter.

> I used to mainly top-post when replying to an entire post, though I
> inline-posted when replying to different points in the same post. What
> turned me to bottom-posting when not inline-posting wasn't some a**hole
> bitchin' and whinin' about top-posters, or the traditional values of
> bottom-posting, but someone that rationally explained why they
> bottom-posted.

[I'm not normally a bottom-, nor a top-poser. I'm an inline-type poster]
You are a smart person, i'm surprised you had to have someone explaining
it to you. For me, it's simply logical, that's why i choose to write
followups the way i do. But my last post wasn't about top vs. bottom, i
don't understand why you keep on about that.

> In the end, there is really nothing you can do about how other people
> post, other than lobbying your government to censor the USENET on your
> country's ISP nntp servers, and bitchin' about only makes you look like
> a netiquette nagger.

I don't know if your pet-peeve, the one that you are always bitchin'
about, the activation-retinascanning-validating-hoopjumping circus, if
you think your bitching about it in here will convince the captain of
the ship, the MS Jaggernaut, to make any coursechanges? (Don't stop
bithin' about it on my acount.)

Me, i didn't try to make anyone change their way of posting. Again, i
was offering an explanation as to why i think OE was *designed* to
enforce its users posts to be the way they are (and then i expressed my
bewildement as to how many peoples mind works).

In both, the hoopjumping and quote-below-sig.delimiter, cases Micros~1
is doing what they do to further their own interests, against end-users
and/or competing software-developers, because they can. If i would
petition /my/ goverment regarding this, it would be to legislate
anti-trust laws and then to have them be enfored. Not that i think /my/
goverment have enough weight to make large anational megacorps do
anything, them days are gone.

--
Resistance is futile, your ass will be laminated.

Please followup in newsgroup.
E-mail address is invalid due to spam-control.
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 10:22:05 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"... et al." <look@sig.bcause.this.is.invalid> wrote in message

> Are you still on about the top-posting thingy? I was writing about the
> fact that i don't understand why intelligent people with open eyes use
> software that put quoted text below the sig-delimiter.

If they were as intelligent as you give them credit for they would use the
insert signature option and insert the signature into the correct place,
there is that option in OE, only the lazy/clueless ignore it.
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 1:56:23 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 01:39:31 +0100, "Alan Smith" <alan@hidden.email>
wrote:

>
>Why should it be? If they discover a widely used pirated registration after
>you've used the updates one they should just let you continue to get the
>updates?
>If the Police discover you using the car you use but stole months ago they
>should just let you continue using it because you'd started to use it.?
>That'd work and be reasonable too?

That beside the point, it what Microsoft had said, Once your
validate you won't have to do it again. I think Microsoft may have
to make an xpi for firefox and mozilla as well.


Greg Ro
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 6:13:17 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Hi Doug,

A fairly new Matrox 40GB went down overnight with a quite-validated and
activated XP Pro license onboard. While waiting for the RMA hard drive to
arrive (Monday please!), I threw an old 6GB WD in to hold things up in the
meantime, and did a scratch install on it.

I encountered and succeeded at activation and verification back in January,
when I first installed this legit copy. It passes all the visual
inspections and other tests posted online, and the telephone number I've
forgotten altogether since I never thought I'd need it. This copy has been
scratch installed on the same machine three times since, the last time in
March. I wiped the drive again, and went through the laborious process of
installing XP Pro on a ATA-33 drive (reminded me of my OS/2 install days).
Same non-result, with the 'verification' site saying that "Microsoft never
issued this key". Further attempts failed to issue that error message,
instead just saying that the validation failed. The routine on the server
seemed to think this was an nVidia OEM copy of XP SP2, which is most
certainly not the case, though it is an OEM disc.

I understand the OEM licenses were somehow prevented en masse via a few
messages on the newsgroup, but this was supposed to have happened March 1 or
so, and I did the last scratch install of this (legit) disc in the middle of
March. I know things take a little while to hit the UK sometimes, but I got
the impression that something's gone wrong with the program handling the
validation. Is there a number I can call to get this taken care of? Thanks
in advance.

Stephen Goodman
Cartoons about DVDs and Stuff
http://www.earthlight.net/HiddenTrack



"Doug Knox MS-MVP" <dknox@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:o OQl1MicFHA.3808@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
I'm seeing the same thing you are. However, this is "normal". The ActiveX
control is already installed on your computer. This is still a work in
progress.

--
Doug Knox, MS-MVP Windows Media Center\Windows Powered Smart
Display\Security
Win 95/98/Me/XP Tweaks and Fixes
http://www.dougknox.com
--------------------------------
Per user Group Policy Restrictions for XP Home and XP Pro
http://www.dougknox.com/xp/utils/xp_securityconsole.htm
--------------------------------
Please reply only to the newsgroup so all may benefit.
Unsolicited e-mail is not answered.

"Nightowl" <owl@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
news:W$4ZQcHyQEsCFwSQ@black.hole...
> Hi all
>
> I've only today visited the download center at microsoft.com and come up
> against the dreaded validation for the first time.
>
> My copy of XP passes and for the rest of that session I "stay valid",
> (i.e. if I try another download I get the "Genuine Windows" banner and
> am offered the download immediately).
>
> But I am confused over what happens between sessions. The info on the
> Microsoft site says that once validated, a download key is placed on
> your computer to speed up access in the future. I thought this meant the
> validation would be persistent? But it doesn't seem to be.
>
> If I use IE and visit the site again, I am again asked to validate.
> Should this happen? When I check the box to validate now and continue, a
> page flashes by too quickly for me to really see what's there, but it
> looks like some screenshots of IE? Then it flashes back to the download
> page and tells me I am genuine.
>
> Is this the way it's supposed to work?
>
> If I use Firefox to validate and then visit the site a second time, I
> have to go through the whole validation procedure again, including
> running the checker, pasting in the key it comes up with, etc.
>
> I thought it would work like some kind of cookie on your machine so that
> once validated it would be recognised as genuine every time you visit
> the site. *Something* is definitely happening in IE, but the site is
> still asking me to start the validation process. In Firefox whatever it
> is is not "sticking".
>
> I'm really confused. Can anyone tell me how this is meant to work? Have
> we really got to go through this procedure every time? (Yes, I know it's
> not mandatory at the mo, but they say it may be in the future.)
>
> --
> Nightowl
July 31, 2005 6:13:18 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

That version is tied to the motherboard. I know microsoft disabled
activation for those licenses in early March. Call them and prove that
you're a legitimate user.
"SP Goodman" <notearthlight2k@invalid.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uTV$N0WlFHA.3316@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi Doug,
>
> A fairly new Matrox 40GB went down overnight with a quite-validated and
> activated XP Pro license onboard. While waiting for the RMA hard drive to
> arrive (Monday please!), I threw an old 6GB WD in to hold things up in the
> meantime, and did a scratch install on it.
>
> I encountered and succeeded at activation and verification back in
> January, when I first installed this legit copy. It passes all the visual
> inspections and other tests posted online, and the telephone number I've
> forgotten altogether since I never thought I'd need it. This copy has
> been scratch installed on the same machine three times since, the last
> time in March. I wiped the drive again, and went through the laborious
> process of installing XP Pro on a ATA-33 drive (reminded me of my OS/2
> install days). Same non-result, with the 'verification' site saying that
> "Microsoft never issued this key". Further attempts failed to issue that
> error message, instead just saying that the validation failed. The
> routine on the server seemed to think this was an nVidia OEM copy of XP
> SP2, which is most certainly not the case, though it is an OEM disc.
>
> I understand the OEM licenses were somehow prevented en masse via a few
> messages on the newsgroup, but this was supposed to have happened March 1
> or so, and I did the last scratch install of this (legit) disc in the
> middle of March. I know things take a little while to hit the UK
> sometimes, but I got the impression that something's gone wrong with the
> program handling the validation. Is there a number I can call to get this
> taken care of? Thanks in advance.
>
> Stephen Goodman
> Cartoons about DVDs and Stuff
> http://www.earthlight.net/HiddenTrack
>
>
>
> "Doug Knox MS-MVP" <dknox@mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:o OQl1MicFHA.3808@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> I'm seeing the same thing you are. However, this is "normal". The
> ActiveX control is already installed on your computer. This is still a
> work in progress.
>
> --
> Doug Knox, MS-MVP Windows Media Center\Windows Powered Smart
> Display\Security
> Win 95/98/Me/XP Tweaks and Fixes
> http://www.dougknox.com
> --------------------------------
> Per user Group Policy Restrictions for XP Home and XP Pro
> http://www.dougknox.com/xp/utils/xp_securityconsole.htm
> --------------------------------
> Please reply only to the newsgroup so all may benefit.
> Unsolicited e-mail is not answered.
>
> "Nightowl" <owl@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
> news:W$4ZQcHyQEsCFwSQ@black.hole...
>> Hi all
>>
>> I've only today visited the download center at microsoft.com and come up
>> against the dreaded validation for the first time.
>>
>> My copy of XP passes and for the rest of that session I "stay valid",
>> (i.e. if I try another download I get the "Genuine Windows" banner and
>> am offered the download immediately).
>>
>> But I am confused over what happens between sessions. The info on the
>> Microsoft site says that once validated, a download key is placed on
>> your computer to speed up access in the future. I thought this meant the
>> validation would be persistent? But it doesn't seem to be.
>>
>> If I use IE and visit the site again, I am again asked to validate.
>> Should this happen? When I check the box to validate now and continue, a
>> page flashes by too quickly for me to really see what's there, but it
>> looks like some screenshots of IE? Then it flashes back to the download
>> page and tells me I am genuine.
>>
>> Is this the way it's supposed to work?
>>
>> If I use Firefox to validate and then visit the site a second time, I
>> have to go through the whole validation procedure again, including
>> running the checker, pasting in the key it comes up with, etc.
>>
>> I thought it would work like some kind of cookie on your machine so that
>> once validated it would be recognised as genuine every time you visit
>> the site. *Something* is definitely happening in IE, but the site is
>> still asking me to start the validation process. In Firefox whatever it
>> is is not "sticking".
>>
>> I'm really confused. Can anyone tell me how this is meant to work? Have
>> we really got to go through this procedure every time? (Yes, I know it's
>> not mandatory at the mo, but they say it may be in the future.)
>>
>> --
>> Nightowl
>
>
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 6:13:18 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 02:13:17 +0100, "SP Goodman"
<notearthlight2k@invalid.hotmail.com> wrote:

>Hi Doug,
>
>A fairly new Matrox 40GB went down overnight with a quite-validated and
>activated XP Pro license onboard. While waiting for the RMA hard drive to
>arrive (Monday please!), I threw an old 6GB WD in to hold things up in the
>meantime, and did a scratch install on it.
>
>I encountered and succeeded at activation and verification back in January,
>when I first installed this legit copy. It passes all the visual
>inspections and other tests posted online, and the telephone number I've
>forgotten altogether since I never thought I'd need it. This copy has been
>scratch installed on the same machine three times since, the last time in
>March. I wiped the drive again, and went through the laborious process of
>installing XP Pro on a ATA-33 drive (reminded me of my OS/2 install days).
>Same non-result, with the 'verification' site saying that "Microsoft never
>issued this key". Further attempts failed to issue that error message,
>instead just saying that the validation failed. The routine on the server
>seemed to think this was an nVidia OEM copy of XP SP2, which is most
>certainly not the case, though it is an OEM disc.
>
>I understand the OEM licenses were somehow prevented en masse via a few
>messages on the newsgroup, but this was supposed to have happened March 1 or
>so, and I did the last scratch install of this (legit) disc in the middle of
>March. I know things take a little while to hit the UK sometimes, but I got
>the impression that something's gone wrong with the program handling the
>validation. Is there a number I can call to get this taken care of? Thanks
>in advance.
>
>Stephen Goodman
>Cartoons about DVDs and Stuff
>http://www.earthlight.net/HiddenTrack
>
>
>
>"Doug Knox MS-MVP" <dknox@mvps.org> wrote in message
>news:o OQl1MicFHA.3808@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>I'm seeing the same thing you are. However, this is "normal". The ActiveX
>control is already installed on your computer. This is still a work in
>progress.

SP Goodman
1st question
Did you use key on your machine or from a sticker?

2nd question
What version of xp did you install xp? xpsp1? xpsp2?

If you did not install xp sp2 yet and your 30 days are almost up.
I would install xpsp2 cd update and then try to activate.


Greg Ro
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 4:04:11 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Greg Ro" <webworm11@yes.lycos.com> wrote in message
news:%23BgkNtXlFHA.1412@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 02:13:17 +0100, "SP Goodman"
> <notearthlight2k@invalid.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi Doug,
>>
>>A fairly new Matrox 40GB went down overnight with a quite-validated and
>>activated XP Pro license onboard. While waiting for the RMA hard drive to
>>arrive (Monday please!), I threw an old 6GB WD in to hold things up in the
>>meantime, and did a scratch install on it.
>>
>>I encountered and succeeded at activation and verification back in
>>January,
>>when I first installed this legit copy. It passes all the visual
>>inspections and other tests posted online, and the telephone number I've
>>forgotten altogether since I never thought I'd need it. This copy has
>>been
>>scratch installed on the same machine three times since, the last time in
>>March. I wiped the drive again, and went through the laborious process of
>>installing XP Pro on a ATA-33 drive (reminded me of my OS/2 install days).
>>Same non-result, with the 'verification' site saying that "Microsoft never
>>issued this key". Further attempts failed to issue that error message,
>>instead just saying that the validation failed. The routine on the server
>>seemed to think this was an nVidia OEM copy of XP SP2, which is most
>>certainly not the case, though it is an OEM disc.
>>
>>I understand the OEM licenses were somehow prevented en masse via a few
>>messages on the newsgroup, but this was supposed to have happened March 1
>>or
>>so, and I did the last scratch install of this (legit) disc in the middle
>>of
>>March. I know things take a little while to hit the UK sometimes, but I
>>got
>>the impression that something's gone wrong with the program handling the
>>validation. Is there a number I can call to get this taken care of?
>>Thanks
>>in advance.
>>
>>Stephen Goodman
>>Cartoons about DVDs and Stuff
>>http://www.earthlight.net/HiddenTrack
>>
>>
>>
>>"Doug Knox MS-MVP" <dknox@mvps.org> wrote in message
>>news:o OQl1MicFHA.3808@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>I'm seeing the same thing you are. However, this is "normal". The
>>ActiveX
>>control is already installed on your computer. This is still a work in
>>progress.
>
> SP Goodman
> 1st question
> Did you use key on your machine or from a sticker?

Sticker, because my PC undergoes a good deal of testing and reinstallation.
Lucky too, given the first motherboard/CPU burnout a month after getting it!

> 2nd question
> What version of xp did you install xp? xpsp1? xpsp2?

It's an SP2 disc.

> If you did not install xp sp2 yet and your 30 days are almost up.
> I would install xpsp2 cd update and then try to activate.


--
Stephen Goodman
Cartoons about DVDs and Stuff
http://www.earthlight.net/HiddenTrack
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 4:04:12 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 12:04:11 +0100, "SP Goodman"
<notearthlight2k@invalid.hotmail.com> wrote:

>Sticker, because my PC undergoes a good deal of testing and reinstallation.
>Lucky too, given the first motherboard/CPU burnout a month after getting it!

There is the problem. It the motherboard. Without admitting it,
Microsoft consider motherboard a new computer. I don't know of any
work arounds. You could possible buy an oem copy of the same version
of windows you have and change the key to that version.

if you original have xp,xp sp1, xp sp1a you could get xp sp2 retail
upgrade. If you have xpsp2 oem, you just need to get another xpsp2
oem and change the key. If you have the full version retail of
xpsp2. I would change the key to that and call in and reactivate
your system. Full Retail you are allowed to transfer to a new
machine.

Greg Ro
Anonymous
August 1, 2005 12:59:58 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Greg Ro" <webworm11@yes.lycos.com> wrote in message
news:%23ZKO$qdlFHA.3312@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 12:04:11 +0100, "SP Goodman"
> <notearthlight2k@invalid.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Sticker, because my PC undergoes a good deal of testing and
>>reinstallation.
>>Lucky too, given the first motherboard/CPU burnout a month after getting
>>it!
>
> There is the problem. It the motherboard. Without admitting it,
> Microsoft consider motherboard a new computer. I don't know of any
> work arounds. You could possible buy an oem copy of the same version
> of windows you have and change the key to that version.

Since we live in the real world, one where computer components fail, I think
I'll resist following the silly logic of such policy, which wants to say
that I should throw out the CD with the motherboard, just so I can buy
another one.

I don't believe this obviously failure-prone policy will last. On one level
Microsoft not only accepted, validated and verified that my S/N was a valid
one, and now they've decided that it's not. It certainly would appear that
someone at MS is determined to fulfill the paranoid fantasies that some
vocal Linux and Mac users have been fostering for ages.

The workaround has already been discovered for the Windows Update situation,
I understand. Funny how the folks who think they're obeying the law seem to
be punished on this one. I've gotten an email from an MS person giving me
the phone number to call in the UK so we'll see what happens.

> if you original have xp,xp sp1, xp sp1a you could get xp sp2 retail
> upgrade.

This is an SP2 full-install. I don't buy upgrade discs anymore given the
kind of rebuilding etc. I do - The last time I had to do that was with
98/98se, and had to keep both CDs on-hand for a rebuild.

> If you have xpsp2 oem, you just need to get another xpsp2
> oem and change the key. If you have the full version retail of
> xpsp2. I would change the key to that and call in and reactivate
> your system. Full Retail you are allowed to transfer to a new
> machine.

Until some accountant at MS comes up with a new way to get people to buy
more copies, huh? Perhaps it's the Scot in me, but I don't like throwing
money away on something I already own the right to use as I please, within
the law. There's not a whit of technical justification behind it, unless
someone can come up with proof that OEM full versions are all pirated or
something. Somehow I don't think Dell and HP would enjoy that a bit.

--
Stephen Goodman
Cartoons about DVDs and Stuff
http://www.earthlight.net/HiddenTrack
!