Vista victim of Piracy
Jim Polaski
From C|net, that bastion of Mac news...NOT.
"Microsoft has issued an update to Windows Vista that's intended to stop a piracy monster.
The software maker said Thursday that the update is aimed at thwarting a technique that
was letting some people use pirated versions of the operating system without going through
the software's built-in product activation. Microsoft has dubbed the approach
"frankenbuild" because it works by combining test versions of Vista with the final code to
create a hybrid version."
Does this mean that folks don't find Vista worth paying for and legally owning?
--
Jim
Edwin
Is Vista the only software ever to be pirated? Why didn't you apply
that same 'reasoning' to non-MS software that was pirated?
Did people crack the Mac OS X DRM to run it on generic PCs because it's
not worth buying a Mac to run Mac OS X?
What really happened is lots of Maccies who thought Parallels or
BootCamp would let them run Windows Vista for 'free' are in for a rude
awakening...
... and those who argued the extra cost of a MacIntel was justified by
its ability to run either Mac OS X or Windows are about to have to pay
an extra $400...
Sandman
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > Does this mean that folks don't find Vista worth paying for and legally
> > owning?
>
> Is Vista the only software ever to be pirated? Why didn't you apply
> that same 'reasoning' to non-MS software that was pirated?
>
> Did people crack the Mac OS X DRM to run it on generic PCs
What Mac OS X DRM, Edwin?
--
Sandman[.net]
Edwin
Loopy says "Duh, whaaa... "
Sandman
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
Edwin says "Eh, I can't answer that question..."
--
Sandman[.net]
tom_...@earthlink.net
and install it on multiple computers.
Jim Polaski
wrote:
Mac OS C "Updates" are FREE tommie.
--
Jim
Chris Boyd
I bought my Intel iMac specifically to get away from Windows. And no
it was not an extra $400.
Jim Polaski
> Jim Polaski wrote:
> > From C|net, that bastion of Mac news...NOT.
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/yeqn4k
> >
> > "Microsoft has issued an update to Windows Vista that's intended to stop a
> > piracy monster.
> >
> > The software maker said Thursday that the update is aimed at thwarting a
> > technique that
> > was letting some people use pirated versions of the operating system
> > without going through
> > the software's built-in product activation. Microsoft has dubbed the
> > approach
> > "frankenbuild" because it works by combining test versions of Vista with
> > the final code to
> > create a hybrid version."
> >
> >
> >
> > Does this mean that folks don't find Vista worth paying for and legally
> > owning?
>
> Is Vista the only software ever to be pirated? Why didn't you apply
> that same 'reasoning' to non-MS software that was pirated?
The article was on Vista, not other stuff. Do try to stay on topic.
>
> Did people crack the Mac OS X DRM to run it on generic PCs because it's
> not worth buying a Mac to run Mac OS X?
The article is on Vista. M$ is taking *specific*anti-piracy measures.
Do you understand specificity? I didn't think so.
>
> What really happened is lots of Maccies who thought Parallels or
> BootCamp would let them run Windows Vista for 'free' are in for a rude
> awakening...
Loopy lost-eddie paints with his ever so broad brush.
>
> ... and those who argued the extra cost of a MacIntel was justified by
> its ability to run either Mac OS X or Windows are about to have to pay
> an extra $400...
You're the loopy one if you think Macs cost an extra $400. Then again you shop for
technology at the Salvation Army stores.
--
Jim
John Slade
"Jim Polaski" <jpol...@NOync.net> wrote in message
news:jpolaski-68453F...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
When Leopard comes out, go look on a BitTorrent site for a pirate
copy. Note how many people are downloading or have downloaded it. You truly
are pathetic. I guess because people pirate OS X, that it isn't worth buying
now is it Jimmy?
http://www.torrentspy.com/search?query=os+x&submit.x=0&submit.y=0
Do you make these stupid comments just so someone can make you look
like a complete idiot?
John
Mitch
<m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> > Did people crack the Mac OS X DRM to run it on generic PCs
>
> What Mac OS X DRM, Edwin?
Now that guy thinks that Apple coding it to run on only Apple's
hardware counts as DRM? After insisting it was a serial number issue?
And after calling it an illegal practice by Apple, an inapropriate
action, and implying it was an unfair scheme?
Is this person capable of _any type_ of reasoning?
Sandman
Mitch <mi...@hawaii.rr> wrote:
Well, as opposed to - for example - Snit, Edwin is very much capable
of reasoning. Edwin is, however, a troll - so reasoning never actually
enters the normal schedule and is a rare sight.
BUt he is capable of it. Edwin isn't stupid (again, unlike Snit) and
can behave like a normal person if the occasion permits it.
--
Sandman[.net]
Nashton
Stick with the facts photoshop boy.
Do people install pirated versions of OSX because its not worth paying
for and when are you going to acquire the ability to:
1. Add integers.
2. Read for context and comprehension.
--
Nicolas
Nashton
When did Jimbo *ever* need outside help to appear obtuse and pig-ignorant?
--
Nicolas
Jim Polaski
"John Slade" <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
Look asswipe, I never said OS X wasn't pirated, if you think otherwise, prove it.
Here, since your reading comprehension is zero, M$ is going out of their way to prevent
same. Is your feeble, no-cell brain so addled that you can't comprehend even the simplest
of concepts?
If you're any indication of the average Windows user, we're in a lot of trouble. Now, go
crawl back inside that tiny straight-jacket of a mind you don't have and try not to hurt
yourself trying to think.
--
Jim
Sandman
Nashton <nan...@nb.ca> wrote:
> >>>>> Does this mean that folks don't find Vista worth paying for and legally
> >>>>> owning?
> >>>> Is Vista the only software ever to be pirated? Why didn't you apply
> >>>> that same 'reasoning' to non-MS software that was pirated?
> >>>>
> >>>> Did people crack the Mac OS X DRM to run it on generic PCs
> >>> What Mac OS X DRM, Edwin?
> >> Loopy says "Duh, whaaa... "
> >
> > Edwin says "Eh, I can't answer that question..."
> >
> >
>
> Stick with the facts photoshop boy.
You mean like your abysmal math and English skills, "Wallmart" boy?
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Nashton <nan...@nb.ca> wrote:
> When did Jimbo *ever* need outside help to appear obtuse and pig-ignorant?
You need to alert us beforehand if you want a new nickname. "Jimbo"
has been declined and your nickname remains "Nashty" or "Nasty".
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
mr-E1078B.08...@News.Individual.NET on 12/16/06 12:49 AM:
Again with Sandman begging for my attention. What the heck is up with that?
--
€ Deleting from a *Save* dialog is not a sign of well done design
€ A personal computer without an OS is crippled by that lacking
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article <C1A95FA5.6BAFF%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>):
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-E1078B.08...@News.Individual.NET on 12/16/06 12:49 AM:
>
>> In article <151220062045340832%mi...@hawaii.rr>,
>> Mitch <mi...@hawaii.rr> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <mr-8EB9F4.16...@News.Individual.NET>, Sandman
>>> <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Did people crack the Mac OS X DRM to run it on generic PCs
>>>>
>>>> What Mac OS X DRM, Edwin?
>>>
>>>
>>> Now that guy thinks that Apple coding it to run on only Apple's
>>> hardware counts as DRM? After insisting it was a serial number issue?
>>> And after calling it an illegal practice by Apple, an inapropriate
>>> action, and implying it was an unfair scheme?
>>>
>>> Is this person capable of _any type_ of reasoning?
>>
>> Well, as opposed to - for example - Snit, Edwin is very much capable
>> of reasoning. Edwin is, however, a troll - so reasoning never actually
>> enters the normal schedule and is a rare sight.
>>
>> BUt he is capable of it. Edwin isn't stupid (again, unlike Snit) and
>> can behave like a normal person if the occasion permits it.
>>
> Again with Sandman begging for my attention. What the heck is up with that?
Okay, I tried to put up with it for a long time, but the few
times you post something worth reading just aren't worth it
anymore. *plonk*
--
Lefty
All of God's creatures have a place..........
.........right next to the potatoes and gravy.
See also: http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/iProduct.gif
Snit
0001HW.C1A9709D...@news.verizon.net on 12/16/06 8:45 AM:
> Snit wrote
> (in article <C1A95FA5.6BAFF%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>):
>
>> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
>> mr-E1078B.08...@News.Individual.NET on 12/16/06 12:49 AM:
>>
>>> In article <151220062045340832%mi...@hawaii.rr>,
>>> Mitch <mi...@hawaii.rr> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <mr-8EB9F4.16...@News.Individual.NET>, Sandman
>>>> <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Did people crack the Mac OS X DRM to run it on generic PCs
>>>>>
>>>>> What Mac OS X DRM, Edwin?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now that guy thinks that Apple coding it to run on only Apple's
>>>> hardware counts as DRM? After insisting it was a serial number issue?
>>>> And after calling it an illegal practice by Apple, an inapropriate
>>>> action, and implying it was an unfair scheme?
>>>>
>>>> Is this person capable of _any type_ of reasoning?
>>>
>>> Well, as opposed to - for example - Snit, Edwin is very much capable
>>> of reasoning. Edwin is, however, a troll - so reasoning never actually
>>> enters the normal schedule and is a rare sight.
>>>
>>> BUt he is capable of it. Edwin isn't stupid (again, unlike Snit) and
>>> can behave like a normal person if the occasion permits it.
>>>
>> Again with Sandman begging for my attention. What the heck is up with that?
>
> Okay, I tried to put up with it for a long time, but the few
> times you post something worth reading just aren't worth it
> anymore. *plonk*
>
>
I truly am interested in why Sandman is begging for my attention in a debate
he is having with Edwin. Other than to try to obfuscate his current debate
and to beg for my attention, what is the purpose?
--
€ Pros aren't beginners in their field (though there are new pros)
€ Similarly configured Macs and Win machines tend to cost roughly the same
€ Some people do use the term "screen name" in relation to IRC
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> >> Again with Sandman begging for my attention. What the heck is up with
> >> that?
> >
> > Okay, I tried to put up with it for a long time, but the few
> > times you post something worth reading just aren't worth it
> > anymore. *plonk*
>
> I truly am interested in why Sandman is begging for my attention in a debate
> he is having with Edwin. Other than to try to obfuscate his current debate
> and to beg for my attention, what is the purpose?
Yeah, you're "interested" in it enough to be killfiled. Go figure.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
I have no control in who claims to or does not claim to kill file anyone
other than *my* actions... who *I* kill file.
Remember - A person's actions speak more about him than what others say, and
that includes when someone says they are kill filtering someone else.
Your actions, Sandman, show you are:
* begging for my attention in many of your posts, both by directly
bringing me up and claiming others are me or are like me...
* You are a liar, as shown recently by your lies about your CSS
* You not only break the law, you advertise the fact and ask others
for help with your "pirating" activities... activities that are
by *definition* illegal.
* Completely unable to point a single lie of mine... something that
is driving you crazy. Um, crazier. You can, however, point to the
comments of *others* as though such comments showed *my* behavior,
which, of course, they do not.
Pointing to *your* comments, Sandman, it is easy to show you are a liar.
Pointing to *my* comments, however, you have been completely unable to
show the same about me.
It is that simple.
--
€ Different viruses are still different even if in the same "family"
€ Dreamweaver and GoLive are professional web development applications
€ Dreamweaver, being the #1 pro web design tool, is used by many pros
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>>> I truly am interested in why Sandman is begging for my attention
>>> in a debate he is having with Edwin. Other than to try to
>>> obfuscate his current debate and to beg for my attention, what is
>>> the purpose?
>>
>> Yeah, you're "interested" in it enough to be killfiled. Go figure.
>
> I have no control in who claims to or does not claim to kill file
Of course you do.
> Remember - A person's actions speak more about him than what others
> say
While a persons action is defined by what others say of it.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <C1A96400.6BB0B%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
Snit, realizing that he can't counter the logic of Sandmans post,
tries to ignore it as if it was never posted and resposts his own
obfuscation instead:
--
Sandman[.net]
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
OH THE HORROR!!!
-- regards , Peter B. P. - http://titancity.com/blog ,
http://macplanet.dk
"If guns kill, do pencils cause spelling errors?"
Snit
> In article <C1A96400.6BB0B%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
I have no control in who claims to or does not claim to kill file anyone
other than *my* actions... who *I* kill file.
Remember - A person's actions speak more about him than what others say, and
that includes when someone says they are kill filtering someone else.
Your actions, Sandman, show you are:
* begging for my attention in many of your posts, both by directly
bringing me up and claiming others are me or are like me...
* You are a liar, as shown recently by your lies about your CSS
* You not only break the law, you advertise the fact and ask others
for help with your "pirating" activities... activities that are
by *definition* illegal.
* Completely unable to point a single lie of mine... something that
is driving you crazy. Um, crazier. You can, however, point to the
comments of *others* as though such comments showed *my* behavior,
which, of course, they do not.
Pointing to *your* comments, Sandman, it is easy to show you are a liar.
Pointing to *my* comments, however, you have been completely unable to
show the same about me.
It is that simple.
--
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
Way too easy:
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
...
>> I have no control in who claims to or does not claim to kill file anyone
>> other than *my* actions... who *I* kill file.
>>
>> Remember - A person's actions speak more about him than what others say, and
>> that includes when someone says they are kill filtering someone else.
>>
>> Your actions, Sandman, show you are:
>> * begging for my attention in many of your posts, both by directly
>> bringing me up and claiming others are me or are like me...
>> * You are a liar, as shown recently by your lies about your CSS
>> * You not only break the law, you advertise the fact and ask others
>> for help with your "pirating" activities... activities that are
>> by *definition* illegal.
>> * Completely unable to point a single lie of mine... something that
>> is driving you crazy. Um, crazier. You can, however, point to the
>> comments of *others* as though such comments showed *my* behavior,
>> which, of course, they do not.
>>
>> Pointing to *your* comments, Sandman, it is easy to show you are a liar.
>>
>> Pointing to *my* comments, however, you have been completely unable to
>> show the same about me.
>>
>> It is that simple.
>
> Way too easy:
>
Your definition of "owned" is not the same as others. Just thought you
should know.
Oh, I fixed your top posting. In any case, Sandman, you have proved, again,
that you simply have no ability to answer posts in an honest way. You are a
liar and an admitted pirate (or, at best, a pirate wannabe).
If you ever actually find a comment of mine you can support as being a lie
you will plaster it in your every post... no doubt. And yet you simply have
not been able to do so... kinda funny how much that pisses you off.
--
€ Nuclear arms are arms
€ OS X's Command+Scroll wheel function does not exist in default XP
€ Technical competence and intelligence are not the same thing
John Slade
"Jim Polaski" <jpol...@NOync.net> wrote in message
You brought up piracy. I did it only in response to you saying, "Does
this mean that folks don't find Vista worth paying for and legally owning?"
I just turned your half assed accusation back to you. When you spout off
about trivial things like this, expect to get made a fool of. I'm not the
only on either, you get made a fool of in this newsgroup on a regular basis.
John
Snit
_33hh.9046$Ga1....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net on 12/16/06 8:46 PM:
>> If you're any indication of the average Windows user, we're in a lot of
>> trouble. Now, go crawl back inside that tiny straight-jacket of a mind you
>> don't have and try not to hurt yourself trying to think.
>>
> You brought up piracy. I did it only in response to you saying, "Does this
> mean that folks don't find Vista worth paying for and legally owning?"
Even in CSMA we have people asking how to pirate Windows... I do not recall
seeing anyone ask how to pirate OS X... though I do not doubt it is done.
Edwin
Mitch wrote:
> In article <mr-8EB9F4.16...@News.Individual.NET>, Sandman
> <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>
> > > Did people crack the Mac OS X DRM to run it on generic PCs
> >
> > What Mac OS X DRM, Edwin?
>
>
> Now that guy thinks that Apple coding it to run on only Apple's
> hardware counts as DRM?
Why not?
> After insisting it was a serial number issue?
Why don't you quote me doing that?
> And after calling it an illegal practice by Apple, an inapropriate
> action, and implying it was an unfair scheme?
I'll go along with the last two, but you pulled that "illegal practice"
accusation out of your arse.
> Is this person capable of _any type_ of reasoning?
I'd be a super genius if I were as capable of reasoning as you are of
irony...
Edwin
He didn't claim you said Mac OS X wasn't pirated, he said the fact it
is pirated makes Mac OS X not worth buying by the same token that you
said MS Vista isn't worth buying because it's pirated.
> Here, since your reading comprehension is zero, M$ is going out of their way to prevent
> same. Is your feeble, no-cell brain so addled that you can't comprehend even the simplest
> of concepts?
>
> If you're any indication of the average Windows user, we're in a lot of trouble. Now, go
> crawl back inside that tiny straight-jacket of a mind you don't have and try not to hurt
> yourself trying to think.
You got what John said totally wrong, then went off on an insulting
tirade against him.
You ought to be truly ashamed.
Edwin
Sandman wrote:
> In article <1166198547.4...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > Sandman wrote:
> > > In article <1166197163....@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > owning?
> > > >
> > > > that same 'reasoning' to non-MS software that was pirated?
> > > >
> > >
> > > What Mac OS X DRM, Edwin?
> >
>
> Edwin says "Eh, I can't answer that question..."
... it's too loopy.
Edwin
Chris Boyd wrote:
> Edwin wrote:
> > Jim Polaski wrote:
> > > From C|net, that bastion of Mac news...NOT.
> > >
> > > http://tinyurl.com/yeqn4k
> > >
> > > "Microsoft has issued an update to Windows Vista that's intended to stop a piracy monster.
> > >
> > > The software maker said Thursday that the update is aimed at thwarting a technique that
> > > was letting some people use pirated versions of the operating system without going through
> > > the software's built-in product activation. Microsoft has dubbed the approach
> > > "frankenbuild" because it works by combining test versions of Vista with the final code to
> > > create a hybrid version."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Is Vista the only software ever to be pirated? Why didn't you apply
> > that same 'reasoning' to non-MS software that was pirated?
> >
> > not worth buying a Mac to run Mac OS X?
> >
> > What really happened is lots of Maccies who thought Parallels or
> > BootCamp would let them run Windows Vista for 'free' are in for a rude
> > awakening...
> >
> > ... and those who argued the extra cost of a MacIntel was justified by
> > its ability to run either Mac OS X or Windows are about to have to pay
> > an extra $400...
>
> I bought my Intel iMac specifically to get away from Windows. And no
> it was not an extra $400.
My remarks were about Maccies who bought Macs with the intention of
also running Windows. Since you're not in that category, what
compelled you to make your irrelevant reply? I ask for information
only.
Edwin
>
> > Jim Polaski wrote:
> > > From C|net, that bastion of Mac news...NOT.
> > >
> > > http://tinyurl.com/yeqn4k
> > >
> > > "Microsoft has issued an update to Windows Vista that's intended to stop a
> > > piracy monster.
> > >
> > > The software maker said Thursday that the update is aimed at thwarting a
> > > technique that
> > > was letting some people use pirated versions of the operating system
> > > without going through
> > > the software's built-in product activation. Microsoft has dubbed the
> > > approach
> > > "frankenbuild" because it works by combining test versions of Vista with
> > > the final code to
> > > create a hybrid version."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Does this mean that folks don't find Vista worth paying for and legally
> > > owning?
> >
> > Is Vista the only software ever to be pirated? Why didn't you apply
> > that same 'reasoning' to non-MS software that was pirated?
>
IOW, you don't have the guts to face your own hypocrisy. The topic is
why you don't apply the same standards of judgment to Vista as you do
to other software.
> >
> > Did people crack the Mac OS X DRM to run it on generic PCs because it's
> > not worth buying a Mac to run Mac OS X?
>
> The article is on Vista. M$ is taking *specific*anti-piracy measures.
I'm responding to your remarks about Vista, not to the article.
> Do you understand specificity? I didn't think so.
As if what you think makes much difference after you just got done
making a fool of yourself for the umpteenth time...
> >
> > What really happened is lots of Maccies who thought Parallels or
> > BootCamp would let them run Windows Vista for 'free' are in for a rude
> > awakening...
>
> Loopy lost-eddie paints with his ever so broad brush.
IOW, your new name is "Loopy lost-eddie," as that accusation fits what
you wrote. My remarks addressed a very narrow and specific group of
people.
> >
> > ... and those who argued the extra cost of a MacIntel was justified by
> > its ability to run either Mac OS X or Windows are about to have to pay
> > an extra $400...
>
> You're the loopy one if you think Macs cost an extra $400.
The extra $400 is for having to buy Windows Vista due to piracy being
foiled. Your reading comprehension is abysmal, as usual.
My PC cost $1,000 less than the nearest compatible Mac, BTW.
> Then again you shop for
> technology at the Salvation Army stores.
How would you know if I do or not? Does imagining me as impoverished
help you to have a feeling of superiority over me, Jim? Do you
believe attempting to set yourself above me economically is a good
substitute for rational arguments?
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> > Way too easy:
>
> Your definition of "owned" is not the same as others.
If you say so, it must be false.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
You are right.
[And Sandman disappears in a puff of his own twisted logic.]
LOL!
--
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
€ OS X users are at far less risk of malware then are XP users
€ Photoshop is an image editing application
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> >>> Way too easy:
> >>
> >> Your definition of "owned" is not the same as others.
> >
> > If you say so, it must be false.
>
> You are right.
Thanks for admitting to me being correct. It shows courage on your
part, even when it displayed your ignorance.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
What Sandman dishonestly snipped:
------
>>> Way too easy:
>>
>> Your definition of "owned" is not the same as others.
>
> If you say so, it must be false.
You are right.
[And Sandman disappears in a puff of his own twisted logic.]
LOL!
-----
I do wish, Sandman, you could learn to be honest.
--
€ If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
€ Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree)
€ One can be actually guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> >>>>> Way too easy:
> >>>>
> >>>> Your definition of "owned" is not the same as others.
> >>>
> >>> If you say so, it must be false.
> >>
> >> You are right.
> >
> > Thanks for admitting to me being correct. It shows courage on your
> > part, even when it displayed your ignorance.
>
> What Sandman dishonestly snipped
Your lie above disqualified the rest of your post from being read. If
you want me to read your posts, you have to stop lying and trolling.
Thanks.
--
Sandman[.net]