Need Advice, Please.

  • Thread starter Thread starter A Lurker Delurkered
  • Start date Start date
John Corliss wrote:
Click to expand...
John, activation does NOT require registration and you should not mix
them up.
Click to expand...
I recommend you read MS-MVP Alex Nichol's WPA FAQ:
<http://winsupportcenter.com/win5/a/wpa.htm>
Click to expand...

a.. If you have to phone in yourself to carry out an activation or
reactivation, you are not required to give any identifying personal
information.
Click to expand...

IF that were true then one could phone up every week and enable
WPA. When I spoke to Microsoft they made it quite clear that they kept
info on people to avoid that. Activate more than "x" times in a period
and they either refuse activation and/or start asking a lot of
questions.

Microsoft activation is not as bad as spyware. It is worse. At least
one can generally use spyware on a non internet computer without
problems. Try using windows XP without "activation" after 30 days
and see where your spending hundreds of dollars got you.


Regards, John.
 
IF that were true then one could phone up every week and enable WPA.
Click to expand...

Of course it is true.
And no, it doesn't follow that you can phone up every week and enable
WPA. You can't. Something is wrong with your reasoning power. But he,
what's new?
When I spoke to Microsoft they made it quite clear that they kept
info on people to avoid that.
Click to expand...

Riiiiiight!
When Microsoft speaks to everybody but you, they make it quite clear
that they don't keep info on people. You must be someone special! :)
They keep info on your computer, in a 44-digit key in which the hardware
configuration that is unique to your computer is stored.
Activate more than "x" times in a period
and they either refuse activation and/or start asking a lot of
questions.
Click to expand...

Yep, if you want to activate *too often*, you are a suspect of piracy.
That is what WPA is about, isn't it? To prevent piracy.
So yes: then and only then you'll be asked questions.

And may I remind you that the issue that John Corliss raised was NOT
about WPA as a questionable technology to fight piracy but about his
completely wrong statement that WPA requires you to register and provide
all of your demographic information. Having put that right should end
this off topic nonsense.
Microsoft activation is not as bad as spyware. It is worse. At least
one can generally use spyware on a non internet computer without
problems.
Click to expand...

BWAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAA
You can activate Windows XP (*IF* you have to) on an internet computer
without problems.
Try using windows XP without "activation" after 30 days
and see where your spending hundreds of dollars got you.
Click to expand...

Yep. *IF* you must activate, it would really be silly to not do that.
That must be the smartest remark of the week. Congrats!

Of course, many users will never experience WPA, though.
Most PC vendors will preactivate Windows XP.
Most people do not change their hardware often enough to require
reactivation.

And should you have to (re)activate, then that is quite a smooth and
anonymous affair.

Now this is all too well known, for about two years now.
So, it really is getting old by now.
Nothing wrong with newbies being a newbie, but someone like you should
know how it works or shut up about it. At least here.
This is a freeware group, isn't it?
If you do not know what that means, look it up in a FAQ.

The OP, who came here primarily with a freeware question, has been
helped and is long gone.
I'm now gone, as well. Don't bother to answer, as I will not read it.
I learned my lesson when you added more drivel with every new post in
the javascript thread.

EOD
 
John Fitzsimons wrote:
Click to expand...

When Microsoft speaks to everybody but you, they make it quite clear
that they don't keep info on people.
Click to expand...

And I should believe them ? < ROFL > Yea, sure. Sorry, if you want to
be gullible then be that way. I have no reason to trust Microsoft but
plenty of reasons not to.
You must be someone special! :)
They keep info on your computer, in a 44-digit key in which the hardware
configuration that is unique to your computer is stored.
Click to expand...

You know that ? So how about posting the code here of how it works ?
Or perhaps you just choose to believe anything Microsoft tells you ? A
44-digit code could include a huge amount of information. Not only
about hardware but other things on my computer. Including personal
info. Your "assurances" are as useless as Microsoft's.

BWAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAA
You can activate Windows XP (*IF* you have to) on an internet computer
without problems.
Click to expand...

I didn't say you couldn't. My point was that activation was necessary.
Spyware/adware will usually work even if not sending data out via the
internet.

XP will not work after 30 days, despite costing hundreds of dollars,
unless activated.

"Activation" being necessary was my point. Not the method used
to do it.
Yep. *IF* you must activate, it would really be silly to not do that.
That must be the smartest remark of the week. Congrats!
Click to expand...

My point was that activation was needed. Even many adware and spyware
programs do NOT need activation to work. That makes XP worse than them
in many instances IMO.
Of course, many users will never experience WPA, though.
Most PC vendors will preactivate Windows XP.
Most people do not change their hardware often enough to require
reactivation.
Click to expand...

Is activation only required when changing hardware ? How about when
essential files get deleted or corrupted. The latter happened to me
just a matter of days ago. XP will NOT now load up properly. Many
people would not know how to fix that so would need to contact
Microsoft again.

I'm now gone, as well. Don't bother to answer, as I will not read it.
Click to expand...

Read whatever you like. Sleep with Bill Gates if you like. Won't
bother me either way.

Regards, John.
 
<Snip and compressed above>

Most of the advice given has been good with a couple of exceptions. I
would choose either avast! or AntiVir over AVG for better protection
against viruses, trojans, and other malware (unless you are cpu
impaired). (And/or find a free after rebate copy of Norton Internet
Security if you are in the US/Canada.) All provide similar features
but AVG has not done nearly as well on recent comparative tests. As
noted, the XP firewall does not provide outbound security.

You might also review recent threads here in acf on these topics
and/or on the final few products you are choosing between. Thread
topics you might find particlularly relevant have addressed security,
trojans, startup managers, and browsers/enhancements.

You might also take a look at various "best of" lists besides
pricelessware.

http://hologuides.com/freeware/
includes a number of "favorites" lists. (I haven't visited most of
them so I can't speak for the quality.)

An almost random selection of my links:

OnlyTheBestFreeware (also see the links page) -
http://www.onlythebestfreeware.com/default.asp

Fabulous Freeware - http://fabfree.av-services.net/

Son of Spy's I Use It -

Bob's Worlds Best Freeware (Lacks explanations, evaluations, and
comparisons but recent revisions.) -
http://webpages.charter.net/bobad/best.htm

Radified Freeware - Favorite Free Software Programs (Also the best
programs guide includes explanations, but mostly not freeware) -
http://radified.com/Articles/freeware.htm

Best pc freeware.com - http://www.tensmar.com/bestpcfreeware/

Bit Bucket Heaven - http://www.bitbucketheaven.com/freeware.shtml

CoMa's Freeware List -
http://www.algonet.se/~hubbabub/freeware/freeware.html
 
John Fitzsimons wrote:

Sietse Fliege said:
You know that ?
Click to expand...

I think I have good (i.e. other than MS' assurances) reasons to believe
that.
So how about posting the code here of how it works ?
Click to expand...

Would not that be completely off topic?
Should we not, per your FAQ, avoid posting things like that???

But for this once : see below. [1]
Or perhaps you just choose to believe anything Microsoft tells you ?
Click to expand...

No, I certainly do not. And you have no reason at all to suggest that.
A 44-digit code could include a huge amount of information. Not only
about hardware but other things on my computer. Including personal
info. Your "assurances" are as useless as Microsoft's.
Click to expand...

Yep. Don't believe me for my blue eyes!
My point was that activation was needed. Even many adware and spyware
programs do NOT need activation to work. That makes XP worse than them
in many instances IMO.
Click to expand...

John Corliss brought up only the privacy aspect of WPA.
My reply also was only about the privacy aspect of WPA.
Would you mind doing the same, as it is off topic from the beginning.

There are many knowledgeable people who are more or less critical of
certain aspects of WPA.
However, only a few consider the privacy thing that important.
I never said that I find WPA a good thing *in general* myself.
All I said was :
*Most* people (including me) will never have to (re)activate.
*IF* you have to (re)activate, then in general that is quite a smooth
process that *is not a threat to your privacy.*

Evaluating this privacy thing is very technical, see below. [1]
Discussing that alone could already be good for a long winding thread.
And then there are the other aspects of WPA.
And there are all sorts of privacy-related and other issues with other
Microsoft features, like Windows Update, Windows Passport, DRM, etc.

MS issues are discussed all over the internet and usenet, in much more
appropiate places.
These really should not be discussed extensively in a.c.f. IMO and if I
read your FAQ, IYO as well!
Is activation only required when changing hardware ? How about when
essential files get deleted or corrupted. The latter happened to me
just a matter of days ago. XP will NOT now load up properly. Many
people would not know how to fix that so would need to contact
Microsoft again.
Click to expand...

That is called "product support", which does require registration.
But (re)activation does not come into play.
However, you should ask these question somewhere else, not in here.

______________________________________

[1] Is the WPA a threat to privacy?
I recommend to read the following paper, because it is to my knowledge
the most authorative:

Inside Internet-based Windows Product Activation
http://www.tecchannel.com/security/client/105/

Note the distinction made in that paper between telephone-based and
internet-based product activation.

"A while ago the telephone-based product activation process of Windows
XP was independently analyzed by tecCHANNEL"

<Note by SF>
Unfortunetaly at this place they *erroneously* provide a wrong link,
namely to their <http://www.tecchannel.com/security/client/58>
which is not about the *telephone*-based *Product Activation* process
but about the *internet*-based *Windows Update* process.

I am sure they meant to link to their :
Inside Windows Product Activation
<http://www.tecchannel.com/client/desktop/30>

The conclusion of that article is on
http://www.tecchannel.com/client/desktop/30/13.html

"In contrast to many critics of Windows Product Activation, we think
that WPA does not prevent typical hardware modifications and, moreover,
respects the user's right to privacy."

That conclusion is based on an (incomplete) analysis of the installation
ID, which is all there is to a telephone-based product activation.
</Note by SF>

Their final analysis of that installation ID and thus of the
telephone-based product activation is:

( back to where we left http://www.tecchannel.com/security/client/105/ )

"Since then the information that is revealed by the installation ID,
which users are required to supply to Microsoft during telephone-based
product activation, has been known in detail. Since then it has also
been known that this information is no threat to the users' privacy.

Unfortunately this analysis has left the question unanswered what
information Internet-based product activation reveals to Microsoft and
how Internet-based product activation therefore impacts the users'
privacy.

This article closes this gap by documenting the protocol employed by
Internet-based product activation. We will be looking at the case of
Internet-based product activation without the optional registration."

The part of that article that is of interest here is on this page:

Internet-based product activation and privacy
http://www.tecchannel.com/security/client/105/11.html

"Although Internet-based product activation transmits much more data
than telephone-based product activation, it hardly reveals more
information about a user or his computer than telephone-based product
activation. We further do not consider the additionally revealed
information to be a threat to privacy."

HTH
 
John Fitzsimons wrote:

Sietse Fliege said:
You know that ?
Click to expand...

I think I have good (i.e. other than MS' assurances) reasons to believe
that.
So how about posting the code here of how it works ?
Click to expand...

Would not that be completely off topic?
Should we not, per your FAQ, avoid posting things like that???

But for this once : see below. [1]
Or perhaps you just choose to believe anything Microsoft tells you ?
Click to expand...

No, I certainly do not. And you have no reason at all to suggest that.
A 44-digit code could include a huge amount of information. Not only
about hardware but other things on my computer. Including personal
info. Your "assurances" are as useless as Microsoft's.
Click to expand...

Yep. Don't believe me for my blue eyes!
My point was that activation was needed. Even many adware and spyware
programs do NOT need activation to work. That makes XP worse than them
in many instances IMO.
Click to expand...

John Corliss brought up only the privacy aspect of WPA.
My reply also was only about the privacy aspect of WPA.
Would you mind doing the same, as it is off topic from the beginning.

There are many knowledgeable people who are more or less critical of
certain aspects of WPA.
However, only a few consider the privacy thing that important.
I never said that I find WPA a good thing *in general* myself.
All I said was :
*Most* people (including me) will never have to (re)activate.
*IF* you have to (re)activate, then in general that is quite a smooth
process that *is not a threat to your privacy.*

Evaluating this privacy thing is very technical, see below. [1]
Discussing that alone could already be good for a long winding thread.
And then there are the other aspects of WPA.
And there are all sorts of privacy-related and other issues with other
Microsoft features, like Windows Update, Windows Passport, DRM, etc.

MS issues are discussed all over the internet and usenet, in much more
appropiate places.
These really should not be discussed extensively in a.c.f. IMO and if I
read your FAQ, IYO as well!
Is activation only required when changing hardware ? How about when
essential files get deleted or corrupted. The latter happened to me
just a matter of days ago. XP will NOT now load up properly. Many
people would not know how to fix that so would need to contact
Microsoft again.
Click to expand...

That is called "product support", which does require registration.
But (re)activation does not come into play.
However, you should ask these question somewhere else, not in here.

______________________________________

[1] Is the WPA a threat to privacy?
I recommend to read the following paper, because it is to my knowledge
the most authorative:

Inside Internet-based Windows Product Activation
http://www.tecchannel.com/security/client/105/

Note the distinction made in that paper between telephone-based and
internet-based product activation.

"A while ago the telephone-based product activation process of Windows
XP was independently analyzed by tecCHANNEL"

<Note by SF>
Unfortunetaly at this place they *erroneously* provide a wrong link,
namely to their <http://www.tecchannel.com/security/client/58>
which is not about the *telephone*-based *Product Activation* process
but about the *internet*-based *Windows Update* process.

I am sure they meant to link to their :
Inside Windows Product Activation
<http://www.tecchannel.com/client/desktop/30>

The conclusion of that article is on
http://www.tecchannel.com/client/desktop/30/13.html

"In contrast to many critics of Windows Product Activation, we think
that WPA does not prevent typical hardware modifications and, moreover,
respects the user's right to privacy."

That conclusion is based on an (incomplete) analysis of the installation
ID, which is all there is to a telephone-based product activation.
</Note by SF>

Their final analysis of that installation ID and thus of the
telephone-based product activation is:

( back to where we left http://www.tecchannel.com/security/client/105/ )

"Since then the information that is revealed by the installation ID,
which users are required to supply to Microsoft during telephone-based
product activation, has been known in detail. Since then it has also
been known that this information is no threat to the users' privacy.

Unfortunately this analysis has left the question unanswered what
information Internet-based product activation reveals to Microsoft and
how Internet-based product activation therefore impacts the users'
privacy.

This article closes this gap by documenting the protocol employed by
Internet-based product activation. We will be looking at the case of
Internet-based product activation without the optional registration."

The part of that article that is of interest here is on this page:

Internet-based product activation and privacy
http://www.tecchannel.com/security/client/105/11.html

"Although Internet-based product activation transmits much more data
than telephone-based product activation, it hardly reveals more
information about a user or his computer than telephone-based product
activation. We further do not consider the additionally revealed
information to be a threat to privacy."


Freeware (isn't that what acf is about?) : XPInfo
<http://www.licenturion.com/xp/>
 
John Fitzsimons wrote:

Sietse Fliege said:
You know that ?
Click to expand...

I think I have good (i.e. other than MS' assurances) reasons to believe
that.
So how about posting the code here of how it works ?
Click to expand...

Would not that be completely off topic?
Should we not, per your FAQ, avoid posting things like that???

But for this once : see below. [1]
Or perhaps you just choose to believe anything Microsoft tells you ?
Click to expand...

No, I certainly do not. And you have no reason at all to suggest that.
A 44-digit code could include a huge amount of information. Not only
about hardware but other things on my computer. Including personal
info. Your "assurances" are as useless as Microsoft's.
Click to expand...

Yep. Don't believe me for my blue eyes!
My point was that activation was needed. Even many adware and spyware
programs do NOT need activation to work. That makes XP worse than them
in many instances IMO.
Click to expand...

John Corliss brought up only the privacy aspect of WPA.
My reply also was only about the privacy aspect of WPA.
Would you mind doing the same, as it is off topic from the beginning.

There are many knowledgeable people who are more or less critical of
certain aspects of WPA.
However, only a few consider the privacy thing that important.
I never said that I find WPA a good thing *in general* myself.
All I said was :
*Most* people (including me) will never have to (re)activate.
*IF* you have to (re)activate, then in general that is quite a smooth
process that *is not a threat to your privacy.*

Evaluating this privacy thing is very technical, see below. [1]
Discussing that alone could already be good for a long winding thread.
And then there are the other aspects of WPA.
And there are all sorts of privacy-related and other issues with other
Microsoft features, like Windows Update, Windows Passport, DRM, etc.

MS issues are discussed all over the internet and usenet, in much more
appropiate places.
These really should not be discussed extensively in a.c.f. IMO and if I
read your FAQ, IYO as well!
Is activation only required when changing hardware ? How about when
essential files get deleted or corrupted. The latter happened to me
just a matter of days ago. XP will NOT now load up properly. Many
people would not know how to fix that so would need to contact
Microsoft again.
Click to expand...

That is called "product support", which does require registration.
But (re)activation does not come into play.
However, you should ask these question somewhere else, not in here.

______________________________________

[1] Is the WPA a threat to privacy?
I recommend to read the following paper, because it is to my knowledge
the most authorative:

Inside Internet-based Windows Product Activation
http://www.tecchannel.com/security/client/105/

Note the distinction made in that paper between telephone-based and
internet-based product activation.

"A while ago the telephone-based product activation process of Windows
XP was independently analyzed by tecCHANNEL"

<Note by SF>
Unfortunetaly at this place they *erroneously* provide a wrong link,
namely to their <http://www.tecchannel.com/security/client/58>
which is not about the *telephone*-based *Product Activation* process
but about the *internet*-based *Windows Update* process.

I am sure they meant to link to their :
Inside Windows Product Activation
<http://www.tecchannel.com/client/desktop/30>

The conclusion of that article is on
http://www.tecchannel.com/client/desktop/30/13.html

"In contrast to many critics of Windows Product Activation, we think
that WPA does not prevent typical hardware modifications and, moreover,
respects the user's right to privacy."

That conclusion is based on an (incomplete) analysis of the installation
ID, which is all there is to a telephone-based product activation.
</Note by SF>

Their final analysis of that installation ID and thus of the
telephone-based product activation is:

( back to where we left http://www.tecchannel.com/security/client/105/ )

"Since then the information that is revealed by the installation ID,
which users are required to supply to Microsoft during telephone-based
product activation, has been known in detail. Since then it has also
been known that this information is no threat to the users' privacy.

Unfortunately this analysis has left the question unanswered what
information Internet-based product activation reveals to Microsoft and
how Internet-based product activation therefore impacts the users'
privacy.

This article closes this gap by documenting the protocol employed by
Internet-based product activation. We will be looking at the case of
Internet-based product activation without the optional registration."

The part of that article that is of interest here is on this page:

Internet-based product activation and privacy
http://www.tecchannel.com/security/client/105/11.html

"Although Internet-based product activation transmits much more data
than telephone-based product activation, it hardly reveals more
information about a user or his computer than telephone-based product
activation. We further do not consider the additionally revealed
information to be a threat to privacy."
____________________________________

Freeware (isn't that what acf is about?) : XPInfo
<http://www.licenturion.com/xp/>
 
BillR said:
safesurfer wrote in message

<Snip and compressed above>

Most of the advice given has been good with a couple of exceptions. I
would choose either avast! or AntiVir over AVG for better protection
against viruses, trojans, and other malware (unless you are cpu
impaired).
Click to expand...

So you admit that AVG is less resource hungry.
(And/or find a free after rebate copy of Norton Internet
Security if you are in the US/Canada.) All provide similar features
but AVG has not done nearly as well on recent comparative tests.
Click to expand...

Proof? AVG has received 100% ratings lately.
http://www.virusbtn.com/index.xml
http://www.icsalabs.com/html/communities/antivirus/certification.shtml
 
YoKenny said:
So you admit that AVG is less resource hungry.
Click to expand...

"Admit" is rather pejorative in this context. I, myself, noted the
advice might not apply if cpu performance is very important. See
further discussion below.
Proof? AVG has received 100% ratings lately.
http://www.virusbtn.com/index.xml
http://www.icsalabs.com/html/communities/antivirus/certification.shtml
Click to expand...
<Snip>

Another good test org is
www.av-test.org
Also see the comments and links reference below.

"Admittedly" without checking, I _presume_ your citations mean AVG
passed the most recent tests. I'm very glad. Lots of people use AVG.
How did AVG do over the last 12 months? How did it do against
malware not in its signature file (e.g., test 1, 3 or 6 month old AVG
against wild list)? How rapidly was AVG updated with new signatures
when new wild viruses were reported? NB, I'm not saying that AVG is
worse than other personal freeware (except for prior 12 months). I'm
just suggesting questions.

An aside: PLEASE do NOT include the "tested with AVG" note in every
email. This makes searching archives much more difficult. It has no
utility unless you have an attachment. Even then, without validation
what is to prevent malware from spoofing that statement?

Before blindly accepting any of these tests, especially pass/fail
ratings, be sure to review the methodology. Depending upon how you
use the product, some "failed" products are actually better at
detecting viruses than those that pass. For example, a product may
fail or perform poorly because the test is run with default install or
has a requirement to disinfect or delete without user interaction; I
always review settings and must individually review positives before
disinfecting or deleting - and test the problem with other avs!

If you are a big fan of AVG, far be it from me to attempt to change
your bias. I used AVG but changed after reading various reviews.

As for whether AVG is "less resource hungry" -- and whether one cares
-- depends upon your concerns, your threshold of significance
(magnitude, not staistical), your pc, and which feature(s) you specify
- real-time v. limited on-demand v. full scan; expand compressed
files; heuristic options; etc. I have not done any definitive testing
of performance. I suspect you can find such material on the virus or
antivirus ngs, the web, etc. Overall I will trade some performance
for thoroughness and ease of use, especially for periodic disk scans
which I typically run overnight or while running errands.

My statements are supported by posts in acf by several people. Part
of my HackFix summary follows (also see the refenced post for many
other security links). Also see articles in various magazines. e.g.,
PC Mag in April (although I don't think it mentioned AVG).

BillR
 
The old version of Outpost is free, and works with XP.
Click to expand...

It sure didn't with my computer and XP Pro. I was a dedicated Outpost user
when I had Windows 2000. It worked like a charm, so when I went to Windows
XP, I also installed Outpost. I thought something was seriously wrong with
it until I uninstalled Outpost. Worked fine after that.

That's OK though. I installed Kerio Personal Firewall. Worked like a charm.
http://www.kerio.com/us/kpf_home.html
 
Back
Top