Run Vista legally for at least one year/ Vista Activation doesn't stop Piracy
Chad Harris
Microsoft has built into Vista a function that allows anyone to extend the
operating system's activation deadline not just three times, but many times.
The same one-line command that postpones Vista's activation deadline to 120
days can be used an indefinite number of times by first changing a Registry
key from 0 to 1.
This isn't a hacker exploit. It doesn't require any tools or utilities
whatsoever. Microsoft even documented the Registry key, although obtusely,
on its Technet site.
But dishonest PC sellers could use the procedure to install thousands of
copies of Vista and sell them to unsuspecting consumers or businesses as
legitimately activated copies. This would certainly violate the Vista EULA,
but consumers might not realize this until the PCs they bought started
demanding activation - and failing - months or years later.
The following describes the Registry key that's involved.
Step 1. While running a copy of Windows Vista that hasn't yet been
activated, click the Start button, type regedit into the Search box, then
press Enter to launch the Registry Editor.
Step 2. Explore down to the following Registry key:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE \ SOFTWARE \ Microsoft \ Windows NT \ CurrentVersion \ SL
Step 3. Right-click the Registry key named SkipRearm and click Edit. The
default is a Dword (a double word or 4 bytes) with a hex value of 00000000.
Change this value to any positive integer, such as 00000001, save the
change, and close the Registry Editor.
Step 4. Start a command prompt with administrative rights. The fastest way
to do this is to click the Start button, enter cmd in the Search box, then
press Ctrl+Shift+Enter. If you're asked for a network username and password,
provide the ones that log you into your domain. You may be asked to approve
a User Account Control prompt and to provide an administrator password.
Step 5. Type one of the following two commands and press Enter:
slmgr -rearm
or
rundll32 slc.dll,SLReArmWindows
Either command uses Vista's built-in Software Licensing Manager (SLMGR) to
push the activation deadline out to 30 days after the command is run.
Changing SkipRearm from 0 to 1 allows SLMGR to do this an indefinite number
of times. Running either command initializes the value of SkipRearm back to
0.
Step 6. Reboot the PC to make the postponement take effect. (After you log
in, if you like, you can open a command prompt and run the command
slmgr -xpr to see Vista's new expiration date and time. I explained the
slmgr command and its parameters in my Feb. 15 article.)
Step 7. To extend the activation deadline of Vista indefinitely, repeat
steps 1 through 6 as necessary
Read full story and other tricks at source:
http://windowssecrets.com/comp/070315/#story1
Microsoft allows bypass of Vista activation
By Brian Livingston
Microsoft always says it opposes "software pirates" who sell thousands of
unauthorized copies of Windows.
But the Redmond company has made things a lot easier for pirates by adding a
line to the Registry that can be changed from 0 to 1 to postpone the need to
"activate" Vista indefinitely.
Activation doesn't stop true software piracy
As most Windows users know, Microsoft has required "product activation"
since the release of Windows XP in 2001. XP must be activated by
communicating with servers in Redmond within 30 days of installation. By
contrast, Microsoft Office XP, 2003, and 2007 require activatation before
the package is used 5 to 50 times, depending on the version, according to a
company FAQ. If a PC has no Internet connection, a user may activate a
product by dialing a telephone number in various countries.
The activation process will complete successfully only if the software has
not been previously activated, such as on a different machine. If activation
isn't completed within the trial period, Microsoft products temporarily shut
down some of their features. MS Office loses the ability to edit and save
files. After Vista's activation deadline runs out, the user can do little
other than use Internet Explorer to activate the operating system or buy a
new license.
Microsoft describes its product activation scheme as a way to foil software
pirates. However, as I previously described in an InfoWorld Magazine article
on Oct. 22, 2001, activation does nothing to stop mass piracy. The Redmond
company actually included in Windows XP a small file, Wpa.dbl, that makes it
easy for pirates to create thousands of machines that validate perfectly.
Far from stopping software piracy, product activation has primarily been
designed to prevent home users from installing one copy of Windows on a home
machine and a personal-use copy on a laptop. As I explained in an article on
Mar. 8, buying a copyrighted work and making another copy strictly for
personal use is specifically permitted to consumers by the U.S. Copyright
Act and the copyright laws of many other countries.
For example, courts have repeatedly ruled that consumers can make copies of
copyrighted songs or television programs for personal use (not for
distribution or resale). This principle is legally known as "fair use." The
home edition of Microsoft Office 2007 reflects this principle, allowing
consumers to activate three copies of a single purchased product. Microsoft
Windows XP and Vista, however, allow only one activation.
Surprisingly, Microsoft has embedded into its new Vista operating system a
feature that makes things easier than ever for true, mass software pirates.
These tricksters will be able to produce thousands of Windows PCs machines
that won't demand activation indefinitely - at least for a year or more.
Leaving the activation barn door open
I reported in a Feb. 1 article that the upgrade version of Windows Vista
allows itself to be clean-installed to a new hard drive. The new Microsoft
operating system completely omits any checking for a qualifying previous
version of Windows. This allows the upgrade version of Vista to successfully
upgrade over a nonactivated, trial version of itself.
After my article appeared, ZDnet blogger Ed Bott summarized the secret in a
post on Feb. 15. He flatly states, "You satisfied every condition of the
license agreement and aren't skating by on a technicality. The fact that you
have to use a kludgey workaround to use the license you've purchased and are
legally entitled to is Microsoft's fault."
In my own piece, I had speculated that clean-installing the upgrade version
of Vista "probably violates the Vista EULA (End User License Agreement)."
But more and more computer experts are saying that the procedure is fully
compliant with the EULA and, in any event, is perfectly legal.
I wrote a follow-up story on Feb. 15. I reported that Microsoft includes in
Vista a one-line command that even novices can use to postpone the product's
activation deadline three times. This can extend the deadline from its
original 30 days to as much as 120 days - almost four months.
PCWorld.com posted a report on my story on Feb. 17. The magazine quotes a
Microsoft spokeswoman as saying that extending Vista's activation deadline
as I described it "is not a violation of the Vista End User License
Agreement." I'm glad that's clear.
The feature that I've revealing today shows that Microsoft has built into
Vista a function that allows anyone to extend the operating system's
activation deadline not just three times, but many times. The same one-line
command that postpones Vista's activation deadline to 120 days can be used
an indefinite number of times by first changing a Registry key from 0 to 1.
This isn't a hacker exploit. It doesn't require any tools or utilities
whatsoever. Microsoft even documented the Registry key, although obtusely,
on its Technet site.
But dishonest PC sellers could use the procedure to install thousands of
copies of Vista and sell them to unsuspecting consumers or businesses as
legitimately activated copies. This would certainly violate the Vista EULA,
but consumers might not realize this until the PCs they bought started
demanding activation - and failing - months or years later.
The following describes the Registry key that's involved.
Step 1. While running a copy of Windows Vista that hasn't yet been
activated, click the Start button, type regedit into the Search box, then
press Enter to launch the Registry Editor.
Step 2. Explore down to the following Registry key:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE \ SOFTWARE \ Microsoft \ Windows NT \ CurrentVersion \ SL
Step 3. Right-click the Registry key named SkipRearm and click Edit. The
default is a Dword (a double word or 4 bytes) with a hex value of 00000000.
Change this value to any positive integer, such as 00000001, save the
change, and close the Registry Editor.
Step 4. Start a command prompt with administrative rights. The fastest way
to do this is to click the Start button, enter cmd in the Search box, then
press Ctrl+Shift+Enter. If you're asked for a network username and password,
provide the ones that log you into your domain. You may be asked to approve
a User Account Control prompt and to provide an administrator password.
Step 5. Type one of the following two commands and press Enter:
slmgr -rearm
or
rundll32 slc.dll,SLReArmWindows
Either command uses Vista's built-in Software Licensing Manager (SLMGR) to
push the activation deadline out to 30 days after the command is run.
Changing SkipRearm from 0 to 1 allows SLMGR to do this an indefinite number
of times. Running either command initializes the value of SkipRearm back to
0.
Step 6. Reboot the PC to make the postponement take effect. (After you log
in, if you like, you can open a command prompt and run the command
slmgr -xpr to see Vista's new expiration date and time. I explained the
slmgr command and its parameters in my Feb. 15 article.)
Step 7. To extend the activation deadline of Vista indefinitely, repeat
steps 1 through 6 as necessary.
Any crooked PC seller with even the slightest technical skill could easily
install a command file that would carry out steps 1 through 6 automatically.
The program could run slmgr -rearm three times, 30 days apart, to postpone
Vista's activation deadline to 120 days. It could then run skip -rearm every
30 days, for a period of months if not years, by first resetting the
SkipRearm key.
The program could be scheduled to check Vista's activation deadline during
every reboot, and to remind the user to reboot once a month if a deadline
was nearing. The buyer of such a PC would never even see an activation
reminder, much less be required to go through the activation process.
If you happen to buy a Vista PC from a little-known seller, and the price
was too good to be true, use Vista's search function to look for the string
SkipRearm in files. You may discover that your "bargain" computer will
mysteriously start demanding activation in a year or two - but your product
key won't be valid.
I asked Microsoft why SkipRearm is included in Vista if it can be used to
create machines that appear not to need activation for long periods. A
Microsoft spokewoman replied, "I connected with my colleagues and learned,
unfortunately, we do not have information to share at this time." (I can't
identify the speaker because the policy of Waggener Edstrom, Microsoft's
public-relations firm, prohibits the naming of p.r. spokespersons.)
In my testing of Microsoft's back-door loophole, I've found that the
technique can be used to postpone the activation deadline one year or
longer. It may or may not, however, work forever, as I describe below.
Why does SkipRearm even exist in Vista?
The Vista development teaam apparently inserted the SkipRearm loophole to
help major corporations work around Microsoft's new Volume Licensing
Agreement. This new program, which the Redmond company calls "Volume
Licensing 2.0," requires buyers to set up a Key Management Service (KMS)
host, as described by a Microsoft FAQ. Companies must choose from two types
of digital keys and three different methods of activation to validate
thousands of individual Vista machines within the corporate LAN.
Activation of Windows XP, by comparison, requires merely that volume
purchasers use a single product key. Corporate buyers obtain a unique key
when signing a Volume Licensing Agreement. Microsoft has said, however, that
most Windows XP piracy involves stolen product keys that are used by others
to activate unauthorized machines.
The new KMS requirement is intended to discourage such piracy, but it places
a heavy burden on corporate IT administrators. For example, Microsoft
provides a tool called System Preparation (sysprep.exe) to prepare Vista
machines for use. If a system can't be completely prepped within 30 days
after installation, an admin can run the command sysprep /generalize to
postpone the activation deadline another 30 days. However, like the
slmgr -rearm command, sysprep /generalize will only succeed three times.
To work around this, as a Technet document states, "Microsoft recommends
that you use the SkipRearm setting if you plan on running Sysprep multiple
times on a computer." This is echoed by Microsoft Knowledge Base article
929828.
Contributing editor Susan Bradley points out, "The good guys have to go
through this stupid implementation of a KMS deployment because of bad guys
abusing the system." She strongly feels that users should comply with
Microsoft's EULA provisions. "The operating system license has always been a
one-machine install. ... Many of us forget the multiple-install rule [for
Microsoft Office] since we are so used to the one license, one install
rule," she adds.
In its TechNet documents, Microsoft recommends the repeated use of
SkipRearm. How many times is "multiple times"? My testing revealed that the
answer is, well, indefinite.
. On a copy of Vista Ultimate that Microsoft released in New York City on
Jan. 29, I found that changing SkipRearm from 0 to 1 allowed the command
slmgr -rearm to postpone Vista's activation deadline eight separate times.
After that, changing the 0 to 1 had no effect, preventing slmgr -rearm from
moving the deadline. The use of slmgr -rearm 3 times, plus using SkipRearm 8
times would eliminate Vista's activation nag screens for about one year (12
periods of 30 days).
. On a copy of the upgrade version of Vista Home Premium that I bought in a
retail store on Jan. 30, slmgr -rearm also worked 3 times and SkipRearm
worked 8 times before losing their effect. This combination would, as with
Vista Ultimate, permit a one-year use of Vista without nag screens
appearing.
. On a copy of the full version of Vista Home Premium that I bought in a
retail store on Mar. 14, SkipRearm had no effect on extending the use of
slmgr -rearm at all. This suggests that Microsoft has slipstreamed a new
version into stores, eliminating the SkipRearm feature in Vista Home. That
could mean that changing the key from 0 to 1 will now work only in the
business editions of Vista - Business, Enterprise, and Ultimate - so
corporations can use the loophole.
Where is the usage count of slmgr -rearm stored? Where is the usage count of
SkipRearm stored? These bytes won't be hard for expert users to find. The
use restrictions may be easily lifted. If so, this would allow crooked PC
sellers to truly create machines that would never need activation, ever.
The financial impact of SkipRearm on Microsoft
I'd like to repeat here that I'm not advocating that anyone use the above
technique to violate Microsoft's EULA or avoid paying for Vista. Any company
that used SkipRearm to install Vista on multiple machines for as long as
possible would have little defense against a surprise inspection by the
Business Software Alliance. This coalition of software makers, which
includes Microsoft, investigates reports of unlicensed software and obtains
warrants to conduct audits.
As a journalist, my job is to report the facts. SkipRearm was specifically
built into Vista to be used. Microsoft executives made Vista's activation
overly complex and cumbersome. So the development team apparently invented a
Registry key to lift the burden of Vista's activation deadline, for at least
a year and probably more.
The technique is so powerful and basic, however, that hackers around the
world may soon use the feature to install millions of extra copies of Vista
without buying them. This could have a major impact on Microsoft's revenues.
The company's employees and shareholders might want to be aware of this.
Product activation does little or nothing to stop mass software piracy. It's
become so convoluted, the way Microsoft has implemented it, that it's more
of an irritation to legitimate users than a worthwhile antipiracy measure.
In my opinion, Microsoft should concentrate on legal action against true
pirates instead of inventing more ways to drive honorable users bonkers.
I invite my readers to send me information about SkipRearm using the Windows
Secrets contact page. I'd like to thank my program director, Brent
Scheffler, for tirelessly testing SkipRearm dozens of times, and reader
Reine T. for being the first to point out the use of SkipRearm to me. He'll
receive a gift certificate for a book, CD, or DVD of his choice for sending
me a tip that I used.
Mike Brannigan
The use of the well documented SkipRearm registry key does not allow a LEGAL
use of the OS past the activation deadline.
Your use of the product is covered under your End User License Agreement
(EULA) that you must agree to to install the product.
Section 4 clearly states that Activation is mandatory.
Failure to activate past the notified period means you are using unlicensed
software.
The use of the registry key does not remove you mandatory requirement to
activate.
Modification for the OS by any means (including registry edits) to breach
the terms of the EULA doe not mean that you are "legally" doing anything -
you are using unlicensed software.
--
Mike Brannigan
"Chad Harris" <vistaneedsmuchowork.net> wrote in message
news:O2Z5G7Pa...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
Chad Harris
MSFT Ineffective at Preventing Vista Piracy/Prolonging Time to Activate
I have revised the subject heading to reflect the title of Brian
Livingston's article. As you know Brian is the author of Windows Vista
Secrets with Paul Thurrott.
I should have made the subject line "MSFT Ineffective at Stopping Vista
Piracy". I am not and never have advocated piracy on any of these groups. I
always use legititmat Windows and other MSFT software and have a good time
doing it. However these keys can be used to prolong use of Vista without
activation--and of course "installing the product" isn't activating it. We
have had a number of situations here where activation glitches have reared
their head, and cases (I'm not sure of the number yet, are being reported on
these groups and elsewhere that confirm my worst fears: That the "SPP" aka
the "Software Protection Policy" has forced users of legit Vista into
reduced functionality mode erratically just as WGA has failed in a
significant number of cases with legit Windows XP.
MSFT has made many claims promulgated by Brad Smith and his Associate
General Counsel Nancy Anderson that they effectively prevent piracy on an
individual basis. They are effective only because ignorance is the coin of
the realm in my country the U.S. and many other countries.
I'm going to bet that Nancy Anderson, who is paid well over a million
dollars a year at MSFT and has held MSFT stock for years worth several
million, hasn't lived in a mud hut with no plumbing nor struggled to pay the
bills. She's in the subset that pay her Congress to pass laws to protect
her and exempt her economically. I'm not justifying piracy because of
retail cost. I am saying it's pandemic because multiple countries,
including yours, has systemic legislation and economic policy that skewers
the laws to rob from the poor and disinfranchise and rob from the "middle
class" socio-economically and cater to the rich.
Note the skew here:
Q&A: How Software Piracy Undermines Economic Recovery
Microsoft Associate General Counsel Nancy Anderson leads Microsoft's efforts
to strike back at piracy's economic drain.
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2001/oct01/10-19piracyqa.mspx
I don't think Nancy Anderson is very aware of this reg hack. I point out
that MSFT's Antipiracy measures are competent to the degree people are
ignorant of what's in the registry in regards to activation, and that it can
be a convenience if people run into glitches with activation that do exist.
CH
The White House in the U.S. got caught using the DOJ and US Attorneys as a
political arm of the Republican party. Simply put, they fired 9 (not 7 or
8) US Attorneys who were pursuing major Republican congressmen like Jerry
Lewis. The pursuit of Democrats for prosecution was in the ball park of 100
to 1 statistically. US Attorneys were being directly pressured to go after
Democrats. Alberto Gonzales' claiming he knew nothing about this is beyond
incompetent and he has functioned at the level of a twit. He had no federal
litigation experience and was put in a job for which he had no skills and it
shows. His DAG McNulty has lied under oath to Congress as has he, and lying
to Congress whether under oath or not is purjery under federal law. I give
him less time than MSFT gives you to activate Vista. A number of people in
the EOUSA and at the highest levels of DOJ are guilty of breaking the law in
major ways.
The legacy of the Bush administration will be efficiency at filling coffins
at Dover for generations to come and the effective slaughter of millions of
Iraquis and Americans while squandering treasure that should have been
directed to bolstering the domestic policies that Bill Gates among others
has spent significant time, effort and parts of his personal fortune and his
Foundation to champion.
The only effective way to stop the wasteful killing is a DRAFT. That is the
only policy that will get oblivious, completely apathetic Americans
engaged--the threat of skin in the game.
"Mike Brannigan" <Mike.Brannigan@localhost> wrote in message
news:B230A84A-80B9-4683...@microsoft.com...
Mike Brannigan
under the terms of the EULA that you agree to abide by when you install the
software.
The SkipRearm key is well documented for its intended purpose - the use of
the this key to avoid your mandatory activation is in breach of the EULA and
not the intended purpose of this key. The fact that it is possible does not
mean it should be used to run unlicensed software, no more so then the lack
of any activation processes in early versions of Windows meant that it was
possible to breach your licensing terms and install more then one copy to
multiple machines.
Also for the sake of brevity can you withhold your usual rantings and stick
to the technical point at hand.
--
Mike Brannigan
"Chad Harris" <vistaneedsmuchowork.net> wrote in message
news:uUErJsXa...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Jon
released on April Fools' Day. It's complete misinformation.
--
Jon
"Mike Brannigan" <Mike.Brannigan@localhost> wrote in message
news:OfzQZHYa...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
MICHAEL
arse munching Microsoft shills- where in the EULA does it
state the exact amount of days before you must activate?
Yes, a user is supposed to activate. No argument there.
Where is the definitive amount of days listed in the EULA
before a user is in violation?
-Michael
"Mike Brannigan" <Mike.Brannigan@localhost> wrote in message
news:OfzQZHYa...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
MICHAEL
When did you get it?
-Michael
"Jon" <Email_...@SomewhereOrOther.com> wrote in message
news:uVzPpLYa...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Chad Harris
XP a significant percentage of the time and they blockade installation of
updates a significant percentage of the time. I let Ed Bott author of
Windows Vista Inside Out and a future book on Vista tell the story in the
links below.
The security protections against WGA that you provided previously and the
ways to remove it are important protections for your PC. Another effective
deterrent but one that takes much longer and costs more is to prevent MSFT
from doing it and collect money from them for the laws they have violated in
implementing it.
There are at least two suits in federal court. I'll have to pull their
motions to see if their has been any action on motions to certify them as
a class action.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/275780_msftsuit29.html
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6090651.html
In the last couple months, Brad Smith and Nancy Anderson, the daddy and
mommy of the legal aspects of WGA. General Counsel and Associate General
Counsel at MSFT have cost the company nearly a billion dollars with their
ineptitude.
Lawsuits against WGA has been filed in Seattle and LA in federal district
courts.
"In this most recent lawsuit, the parties allege Microsoft violated the
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Consumer Protection Act, the Computer
Spyware Act, and also engaged in intentional misrepresentation of the
software program."
Failure of the SPP which happens and failure of WGA which happens is not in
any of the promotional material, on Technet, on MSDN, nor on any MSFT site
or in any of the Wagner Edstrom/McCann Ericson mediated MSFT Press Pass
press releases on those two entities. However they happened. I have posted
a gamut of ways they fail here in the past, and linked to several of Ed
Bott's posts decrying and demonstrating their colossal failure and shutting
down the softwasre that people legally purchased, including Windows Vista.
There are volume licensing failure glitches as well.
I don't recall your self appointment as my "editor" in the scheme of things.
Posts are repleat with quotes. aphorisms, slogans at the end or links that
people choose and I choose on occasion to get a message across below my
name. What I type is butressed by fact, and I understand you're proud to
take your place among the indifferent oblivious American public.
Microsoft Draws Second WGA Lawsuit
http://www.securitypronews.com/news/securitynews/spn-45-20060704MicrosoftDrawsSecondWGALawsuit.html
Ed Bott on Legit Users Burned by WGA/SPP
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=84
[Update, 4-Oct: Microsoft has introduced the Software Protection Platform,
which contains features very similar to what I describe here. See For Vista,
WGA gets tougher.]
[Update 12-August: For a detailed discussion of what you'll see if WGA flags
your copy of Windows as "not genuine," see Busted! What happens when WGA
attacks and the accompanying image gallery.]
[Update, 30-June 8:40AM PDT: Microsoft responds, sort of. Details in this
follow-up post.]
Two weeks ago, I wrote about my serious objections to Microsoft's latest
salvo in the war against unauthorized copies of Windows. Two Windows Genuine
Advantage components are being pushed onto users' machines with insufficient
notification and inadequate quality control, and the result is a big mess.
(For details, see Microsoft presses the Stupid button.)
Guess what? WGA might be on the verge of getting even messier. In fact, one
report claims WGA is about to become a Windows "kill switch" - and when I
asked Microsoft for an on-the-record response, they refused to deny it.
Last week, a correspondent on Dave Farber's Interesting People list posted
some comments about his experiences with Windows OneCare Live. In the middle
of the post, he added this tidbit:
I like to review updates before they are installed. The only update that I
have not installed is the latest WGA because of the security issues related
to it.
I called Microsoft support to see if there is a hidden option to say, "yep,
I've got updates turned to manual. it's okay." The rep said, "No and why
wouldn't you want to get the latest updates to Windows."
I responded with the issues relating to WGA. He spent some time telling me
that WGA was a good thing, etc. I reiterated that I have accepted all the
updates except WGA and just want to review the updates before they're
installed on my machine.
He told me that "in the fall, having the latest WGA will become mandatory
and if its not installed, Windows will give a 30 day warning and when the 30
days is up and WGA isn't installed, Windows will stop working, so you might
as well install WGA now." [emphasis added]
I'm wondering if Microsoft has the right to disable Windows functionality or
the OS as a whole (tantamount to revoking my legitimate Windows license) if
I do not install every piece of software that they send it updates.
That can't be true, can it? I'm always suspicious of any report that comes
from a front-line tech support drone, so I sent a note to Microsoft asking
for an official confirmation or, better yet, a denial. Instead, I got this
terse response from a Microsoft spokesperson:
As we have mentioned previously, as the WGA Notifications program expands in
the future, customers may be required to participate. [emphasis added]
Microsoft is gathering feedback in select markets to learn how it can best
meet its customers' needs and will keep customers informed of any changes to
the program.
That's it. That's the entire response.
Uh-oh. Currently, Windows users have the ability to opt out of the Windows
Genuine Advantage program and still get security patches and other Critical
Updates delivered via Windows Update. The only thing you give up is the
ability to download optional updates. Hackers have been working overtime to
find ways to disable WGA notification. If WGA becomes mandatory, would it
mean that Microsoft could prevent Windows from working if it determines -
possibly erroneously - that your copy isn't "genuine"? That's a chilling
possibility, and Microsoft refuses an easy opportunity to deny that that
option is in its plans.
Over at Ed Bott's Windows Expertise, I've been soliciting feedback from
Windows users who've been burned by WGA. So far, I've received 20 comments.
Here's a sampling:
I have an XP Media center with a promise RAID 0 4-disc array. When I
installed the WPA it broke the drivers for the array by causing failed
delayed writes (half of the array just "disapears".) If I do a system
restore to before the installation of the WPA everything goes back to
working just fine.
[S]ince installing WPA . I've had blue screens and a total inability to
boot. I had to run the XP repair function to get the computer to boot. I had
a damaged boot sector on the hard drive. I am running two drives on a RAID 1
config.
I purchased a SEALED OEM copy of XP Professional. WGA said the license key
was already used. I called MS and they said I should uninstall and buy
another copy. I told them I wasn't made of money and hung-up.
Microsoft rejected the product key that came with the ThinkPad I'm using. I
had to call in and they gave me another code to enter which supposedly
worked but now I get the blue screen of death about every other time I
reboot. I've also lost all internet connectivity.
I sent my Compaq Presario notebook for service repair, and it fails the WGA
check. I have a legal version of windows xp professional on it. But I have
no way to correct this problem.
What's most disturbing about this whole saga is Microsoft's complete lack of
transparency on the issue. And before the ABM crowd jumps in with
predictable "What did you expect?" comments, let me argue that Microsoft
actually has a fairly good track record on transparency issues in recent
years. Windows Product Activation is very well documented, and when a
similar uproar occurred in 2001, it was squelched quickly by some fairly
prominent postings from high-level executives who provided details without a
lot of spin. Likewise, the Microsoft Security Response Center has done an
exceptional job at providing quick responses to security issues. (Just ask
Adam Shostack.)
Currently, no one at Microsoft is blogging about this fiasco. No executive
has been quoted on the record about it. There are very few technical details
available, and those that have been published are being tumbled through the
spin machine and spit out as press releases.
If Microsoft really does plan to turn WGA into a kill switch in September,
be prepared for an enormous backlash.
Ed Bott Author of Windows Vista Insisde Out (A million copies presold due in
December)
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=110
CH
__________________________________________________________
Frank Rich's Column Today:
Sunday, March 18, 2007 New York Times
FRANK RICH: The Ides of March 2003
TOMORROW night is the fourth anniversary of President Bush's prime-time
address declaring the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom. In the broad sweep
of history, four years is a nanosecond, but in America, where memories are
congenitally short, it's an eternity. That's why a revisionist history of
the White House's rush to war, much of it written by its initial
cheerleaders, has already taken hold. In this exonerating fictionalization
of the story, nearly every politician and pundit in Washington was duped by
the same "bad intelligence" before the war, and few imagined that the
administration would so botch the invasion's aftermath or that the
occupation would go on so long. "If only I had known then what I know now
..." has been the persistent refrain of the war supporters who subsequently
disowned the fiasco. But the embarrassing reality is that much of the
damning truth about the administration's case for war and its hubristic
expectations for a cakewalk were publicly available before the war, hiding
in plain sight, to be seen by anyone who wanted to look.
By the time the ides of March arrived in March 2003, these warning signs
were visible on a nearly daily basis. So were the signs that Americans were
completely ill prepared for the costs ahead. Iraq was largely anticipated as
a distant, mildly disruptive geopolitical video game that would be over in a
flash.
Now many of the same leaders who sold the war argue that escalation should
be given a chance. This time they're peddling the new doomsday scenario that
any withdrawal timetable will lead to the next 9/11. The question we must
ask is: Has history taught us anything in four years?
Here is a chronology of some of the high and low points in the days leading
up to the national train wreck whose anniversary we mourn this week [with
occasional "where are they now" updates].
March 5, 2003
"I took the Grey Poupon out of my cupboard."
- Representative Duke Cunningham, Republican of California, on the floor of
the House denouncing French opposition to the Iraq war.
[In November 2005, he resigned from Congress and pleaded guilty to accepting
bribes from defense contractors. In January 2007, the United States attorney
who prosecuted him - Carol Lam, a Bush appointee - was forced to step down
for "performance-related" issues by Alberto Gonzales's Justice Department.]
March 6, 2003
President Bush holds his last prewar news conference. The New York Observer
writes that he interchanged Iraq with the attacks of 9/11 eight times, "and
eight times he was unchallenged." The ABC News White House correspondent,
Terry Moran, says the Washington press corps was left "looking like
zombies."
March 7, 2003
Appearing before the United Nations Security Council on the same day that
the United States and three allies (Britain, Spain and Bulgaria) put forth
their resolution demanding that Iraq disarm by March 17, the director
general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei,
reports there is "no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a
nuclear weapons program in Iraq.". He adds that documents "which formed the
basis for the report of recent uranium transaction between Iraq and Niger
are in fact not authentic." None of the three broadcast networks' evening
newscasts mention his findings.
[In 2005 ElBaradei was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.]
March 10, 2003
Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks tells an audience in England, "We do not
want this war, this violence, and we're ashamed that the president of the
United States is from Texas." Boycotts, death threats and anti-Dixie Chicks
demonstrations follow.
[In 2007, the Dixie Chicks won five Grammy Awards, including best song for
"Not Ready to Make Nice."]
March 12, 2003
A senior military planner tells The Daily News "an attack on Iraq could last
as few as seven days."
"Isn't it more likely that antipathy toward the United States in the Islamic
world might diminish amid the demonstrations of jubilant Iraqis celebrating
the end of a regime that has few equals in its ruthlessness?"
- John McCain, writing for the Op-Ed page of The New York Times.
"The Pentagon still has not given a name to the Iraqi war. Somehow
'Operation Re-elect Bush' doesn't seem to be popular."
- Jay Leno, "The Tonight Show."
March 14, 2003
Senator John D. Rockefeller, Democrat of West Virginia, asks the F.B.I. to
investigate the forged documents cited a week earlier by ElBaradei and
alleging an Iraq-Niger uranium transaction: "There is a possibility that the
fabrication of these documents may be part of a larger deception campaign
aimed at manipulating public opinion and foreign policy regarding Iraq."
March 16, 2003
On "Meet the Press," Dick Cheney says that American troops will be "greeted
as liberators," that Saddam "has a longstanding relationship with various
terrorist groups, including the Al Qaeda organization," and that it is an
"overstatement" to suggest that several hundred thousand troops will be
needed in Iraq after it is liberated. Asked by Tim Russert about ElBaradei's
statement that Iraq does not have a nuclear program, the vice president
says, "I think Mr. ElBaradei frankly is wrong."
"There will be new recruits, new recruits probably because of the war that's
about to happen. So we haven't seen the last of Al Qaeda."
- Richard Clarke, former White House counterterrorism czar, on ABC's "This
Week."
[From the recently declassified "key judgments" of the National Intelligence
Estimate of April 2006: "The Iraq conflict has become the cause célèbre for
jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim
world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement."]
"Despite the Bush administration's claims about Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction, U.S. intelligence agencies have been unable to give Congress or
the Pentagon specific information about the amounts of banned weapons or
where they are hidden, according to administration officials and members of
Congress. Senior intelligence analysts say they feel caught between the
demands from White House, Pentagon and other government policy makers for
intelligence that would make the administration's case 'and what they say is
a lack of hard facts,' one official said."
- "U.S. Lacks Specifics on Banned Arms," by Walter Pincus (with additional
reporting by Bob Woodward), The Washington Post, Page A17.
March 17, 2003
Representative Henry Waxman, Democrat of California, who voted for the Iraq
war resolution, writes the president to ask why the administration has
repeatedly used W.M.D. evidence that has turned out to be "a hoax" -
"correspondence that indicates that Iraq sought to obtain nuclear weapons
from an African country, Niger."
[Still waiting for "an adequate explanation" of the bogus Niger claim four
years later, Waxman, now chairman of the chief oversight committee in the
House, wrote Condoleezza Rice on March 12, 2007, seeking a response "to
multiple letters I sent you about this matter."]
In a prime-time address, President Bush tells Saddam to leave Iraq within 48
hours: "Every measure has been made to avoid war, and every measure will be
taken to win it." After the speech, NBC rushes through its analysis to join
a hit show in progress, "Fear Factor," where men and women walk with bare
feet over broken glass to win $50,000.
March 18, 2003
Barbara Bush tells Diane Sawyer on ABC's "Good Morning America" that she
will not watch televised coverage of the war: "Why should we hear about body
bags and deaths, and how many, what day it's going to happen, and how many
this or what do you suppose? Or, I mean, it's, it's not relevant. So, why
should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"
[Visiting the homeless victims of another cataclysm, Hurricane Katrina, at
the Houston Astrodome in 2005, Mrs. Bush said, "And so many of the people in
the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this - this is
working very well for them."]
In one of its editorials strongly endorsing the war, The Wall Street Journal
writes, "There is plenty of evidence that Iraq has harbored Al Qaeda
members."
[In a Feb. 12, 2007, editorial defending the White House's use of prewar
intelligence, The Journal wrote, "Any links between Al Qaeda and Iraq is a
separate issue that was barely mentioned in the run-up to war."]
In an article headlined "Post-war 'Occupation' of Iraq Could Result in
Chaos," Mark McDonald of Knight Ridder Newspapers quotes a "senior leader of
one of Iraq's closest Arab neighbors," who says, "We're worried that the
outcome will be civil war."
A questioner at a White House news briefing asserts that "every other war
has been accompanied by fiscal austerity of some sort, often including tax
increases" and asks, "What's different about this war?" Ari Fleischer
responds, "The most important thing, war or no war, is for the economy to
grow," adding that in the president's judgment, "the best way to help the
economy to grow is to stimulate the economy by providing tax relief."
After consulting with the homeland security secretary, Tom Ridge, the
N.C.A.A. announces that the men's basketball tournament will tip off this
week as scheduled. The N.C.A.A. president, Myles Brand, says, "We were not
going to let a tyrant determine how we were going to lead our lives."
March 19, 2003
"I'd guess that if it goes beyond three weeks, Bush will be in real
trouble."
- Andrew Bacevich, a retired Army colonel teaching at Boston University,
quoted in The Washington Post.
[The March 2007 installment of the Congressionally mandated Pentagon
assessment "Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq" reported that from
Jan. 1 to Feb. 9, 2007, there were more than 1,000 weekly attacks, up from
about 400 in spring 2004.]
Robert McIlvaine, whose 26-year-old son was killed at the World Trade Center
18 months earlier, is arrested at a peace demonstration at the Capitol in
Washington. He tells The Washington Post: "It's very insulting to hear
President Bush say this is for Sept. 11."
"I don't think it is reasonable to close the door on inspections after three
and a half months," when Iraq's government is providing more cooperation
than it has in more than a decade.
- Hans Blix, chief weapons inspector for the United Nations.
The Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that 71 percent of Americans support
going to war in Iraq, up from 59 percent before the president's March 17
speech.
"When the president talks about sacrifice, I think the American people
clearly understand what the president is talking about."
- Ari Fleischer
[Asked in January 2007 how Americans have sacrificed, President Bush
answered: "I think a lot of people are in this fight. I mean, they sacrifice
peace of mind when they see the terrible images of violence on TV every
night."]
Pentagon units will "locate and survey at least 130 and as many as 1,400
possible weapons sites."
- "Disarming Saddam Hussein; Teams of Experts to Hunt Iraq Arms" by Judith
Miller, The Times, Page A1.
President Bush declares war from the Oval Office in a national address: "Our
nation enters this conflict reluctantly, yet our purpose is sure."
Price of a share of Halliburton stock: $20.50
[Value of that Halliburton share on March 16, 2007, adjusted for a split in
2006: $64.12.]
March 20, 2003
"The pictures you're seeing are absolutely phenomenal. These are live
pictures of the Seventh Cavalry racing across the deserts in southern Iraq.
They will - it will be days before they get to Baghdad, but you've never
seen battlefield pictures like these before."
- Walter Rodgers, an embedded CNN correspondent.
"It seems quite odd to me that while we are commenced upon a war, we have no
funding for that war in this budget."
-Hillary Clinton.
"Coalition forces suffered their first casualties in a helicopter crash that
left 12 Britons and 4 Americans dead."
- The Associated Press.
Though the March 23 Oscar ceremony will dispense with the red carpet in
deference to the war, an E! channel executive announces there will be no
cutback on pre-Oscar programming, but "the tone will be much more somber."
March 21, 2003
"I don't mean to be glib about this, or make it sound trite, but it really
is a symphony that has to be orchestrated by a conductor."
- Retired Maj. Gen. Donald Shepperd, CNN military analyst, speaking to Wolf
Blitzer of the bombardment of Baghdad during Shock and Awe.
["Many parts of Iraq are stable. But of course what we see on television is
the one bombing a day that discourages everyone."
- Laura Bush, "Larry King Live," Feb. 26, 2007.]
"The president may occasionally turn on the TV, but that's not how he gets
his news or his information. ... He is the president, he's made his
decisions and the American people are watching him."
- Ari Fleischer.
[The former press secretary received immunity from prosecution in the
Valerie Wilson leak case and testified in the perjury trial of Scooter Libby
in 2007.]
"Peter, I may be going out on a limb, but I'm not sure that the first stage
of this Shock and Awe campaign is really going to frighten the Iraqi people.
In fact, it may have just the opposite effect. If they feel that they've
survived the most that the United States can throw at them and they're still
standing, and they're still able to go about their lives, well, then they
might be rather emboldened. They might feel that, well, look, we can stand a
lot more than this."
- Richard Engel, a Baghdad correspondent speaking to Peter Jennings on ABC's
"World News Tonight."
"Mike Brannigan" <Mike.Brannigan@localhost> wrote in message
news:OfzQZHYa...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
Jon
think.
He may have done other things like initially install Vista at a future date,
such as 2080, before resetting it back to the current date, though which he
didn't mention.
Each time you run 'slmgr -rearm' it adds three new keys under
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\WPA
These also need to be removed in safe mode, to continue using 'slmgr -rearm'
indefinitely afaik.
--
Jon
"MICHAEL" <u15862...@dslr.net> wrote in message
news:%23l9asSY...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
Chad Harris
to you Jon, but when you make a sweeping generalization, it'd be appropriate
to get off your butt and back it up with substantive fact. Every step in
the article is fact. Any idiot can debunk an article, but if you want to do
it intelligently specify why you think it is complete misinformation. The
fact that you haven't or can't speaks volumes.
CH
"Jon" <Email_...@SomewhereOrOther.com> wrote in message
news:uVzPpLYa...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Jon
an elevated command prompt, on an unactivated installation.
Right-click Computer > Properties and look at the activation counter. You'll
see that there is no change. Why? Because that is precisely what it is
intended to do - 'skip the rearm process'
This article makes it abundantly clear what the effect of changing the value
of 'SkipRearm' is
http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsVista/en/library/aefc41f4-a3ec-4f98-a1dc-88a0d045172b1033.mspx?mfr=true
--
Jon
"Chad Harris" <vistaneedsmuchowork.net> wrote in message
news:%23N8NPZY...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Chad Harris
instructions on how to prolong activation repeatedly, and we've posted them
several times on both of these groups. Some of the links are listed here
for people who might want or need them. By the way MSFT revised the Vista
EULA last week for Anytime Upgrades--see last question here:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/buyorupgrade/windowsanytimeupgrade/faq.mspx
Windows Vista Rearm Unlimited Patch
http://www.mydigitallife.info/2006/12/20/windows-vista-rearm-unlimited-patch-grace-priod-crack-to-skip-activation/
Search for "slmgr" on www.technet.microsoft.com
http://search.technet.microsoft.com/search/default.aspx?siteId=1&tab=0&query=slmgr
Windows Vista Volume Activation 2.0
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/plan/faq.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/plan/volact1.mspx
Implementing KMS Activation
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/desktopdeployment/bdd/2007/VolumeAct_6.mspx
KMS Activation Configuration
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/desktopdeployment/bdd/2007/VolumeAct_9.mspx
Windows Vista Volume Activation 2.0: Technical Attributes
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/plan/volact2.mspx
Troubleshooting Problems Using Volume Activation
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/desktopdeployment/bdd/2007/VolumeAct_8.mspx
CH
I'd like to Congratulate all the Americans, particularly the 99% of
indifferent ones, on entering the 5th year of suicide and hemorrhage of
your treasury in Iraq. Dover coffin filling is a vibrant and proliferative
industry even though your government refuses to allow pictures of them
increasing.
Mike Brannigan says this is only ranting--but Mike Brannigan walks around
with both of his arms and legs. Here's what Bush doesn't want you to think
about. Take a good look. America is oblivious to this. They are in the
war; Americans in the states sure as hell are not except for the families of
the people in these coffins.
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/coffin_photos/dover/
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/coffin_photos/dover/gallery.htm
Welcome to the 5th Year of Wasted Lives, Wasted Billions per Month and
Incremental and exponential racheting of Hatred of Americans among other
Nations--Your current West Wing and President and Irresponsible Congress
will set you back for generations among other countries.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
March 5, 2003
March 6, 2003
March 7, 2003
March 10, 2003
March 12, 2003
March 14, 2003
March 16, 2003
March 17, 2003
March 18, 2003
March 19, 2003
- Ari Fleischer
March 20, 2003
-Hillary Clinton.
- The Associated Press.
March 21, 2003
- Ari Fleischer.
"Mike Brannigan" <Mike.Brannigan@localhost> wrote in message
news:OfzQZHYa...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
MICHAEL
"Jon" <Email_...@SomewhereOrOther.com> wrote in message
> Try it. Set 'SkipRearm' set to 1, and run the 'slmgr -rearm' command from an elevated
> command prompt, on an unactivated installation.
>
> Right-click Computer > Properties and look at the activation counter. You'll see that there
> is no change. Why? Because that is precisely what it is intended to do - 'skip the rearm
> process'
Did you reboot after running 'slmgr -rearm'?
MICHAEL
I installed Vista Ultimate from a copy I downloaded from MSDN
back in November into a virtual machine. So far, I am finding that
the registry change does, indeed, work as stated in the article.
I'm going to do a bit more testing/digging, I'll let you know.
I also have a full retail copy that I bought back in February. I may try
that copy, too.
Which Vista version did you install? Ultimate, Business, or Home Premium?
-Michael
"Jon" <Email_...@SomewhereOrOther.com> wrote in message
news:OMesMYYa...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
Jon
changes only fully take place following the reboot.
But if you yourself have observed different behaviour from that which I've
stated, then you are welcome to share.
--
Jon
"MICHAEL" <u15862...@dslr.net> wrote in message
news:eFwsorYa...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
Chad Harris
activation glitches.
There are dozens of ways to download free Vista Ultimate and get it
activated permanantly and to foil the erratic SPP/WGAand they take less
than five minutes once you download it. It may not comply with the EULA but
it is evidence that you can have 42 Billion and change and still not hire
people competent to prevent piracy of your software with a simple
modification of a few files.
I can get it done in less than five minutes. I have drawn the line at
posting these cracks on MSFT news groups or any other ones. I'm not trying
to encourage it--but to point out that it exists. I do think there are
legititmate reasons however, to prolong or postpone activation for some
users given the confusing way MSFT has presented it, and the ectopic
metastatic locations where they have posted bits, fragments and pieces
instead of laying out a simple straightforward, cogent, comprehensive
explanation of Vista Activation.
I don't have a deep interest or training in security as do people like
MSFT's Security Evangelist Steve Riley who is worth travelling a long way if
you ever get the chance to here him speak--and my point here is that Vista's
so called more stringent activation measures are a cinch to crack if you
know where to look and what to do.
I have an interest in Activation only because MSFT has pushed an erratic SPP
and WGA onto the world and refuses to correct it. I personally buy legit
software, but I enjoy knowing whether their highly paid developers and PMs
cannot effectively devise anti-piracy or security measures and that after
the Softies huff and puff about how superior their anticrack mechanisms are
that they are simply a house of cards about as stable as a balsa wood kool
aid stand against a deep penetrating missle armed with an IED.
There are dozens of ways to stave off activation of Vista or just eliminate
it.
Windows Vista ReArm Unlimited Patch Grace Priod Crack to Skip Activation
http://www.mydigitallife.info/2006/12/20/windows-vista-rearm-unlimited-patch-grace-priod-crack-to-skip-activation/
Rearm Unlimited Installer 2.0
http://depositfiles.com/files/462748
CH
Stupid Lawyers of the Week: Fallguys Louis Libby Harvard Law School, and
DOJ's Kyle Sampson (Alfredo Gonzales' Chief of Staff--University of Chicago
School of Law prooving repeatedly that a skunk with a poly sci from the
University of Utah can consistently throw people with premier educations at
top law schools under the bus and crush them even sending them to prison.
FBI Lapses Went On Amid Rising Concerns
Counterterrorism officials' use of flawed procedures to obtain thousands of
U.S. phone records brought internal questions, little scrutiny.
-R. Jeffrey Smith and John Solomon
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/17/AR2007031701451_pf.html
Amid Concerns, FBI Lapses Went On
Records Collection Brought Internal Questions But Little Scrutiny
By R. Jeffrey Smith and John Solomon
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, March 18, 2007; A01
FBI counterterrorism officials continued to use flawed procedures to obtain
thousands of U.S. telephone records during a two-year period when bureau
lawyers and managers were expressing escalating concerns about the practice,
according to senior FBI and Justice Department officials and documents.
FBI lawyers raised the concerns beginning in late October 2004 but did not
closely scrutinize the practice until last year, FBI officials acknowledged.
They also did not understand the scope of the problem until the Justice
Department launched an investigation, FBI officials said.
Under pressure to provide a stronger legal footing, counterterrorism agents
last year wrote new letters to phone companies demanding the information the
bureau already possessed. At least one senior FBI headquarters official --
whom the bureau declined to name -- signed these "national security letters"
without including the required proof that the letters were linked to FBI
counterterrorism or espionage investigations, an FBI official said.
The flawed procedures involved the use of emergency demands for records,
called "exigent circumstance" letters, which contained false or undocumented
claims. They also included national security letters that were issued
without FBI rules being followed. Both types of request were served on three
phone companies.
Referring to the exigent circumstance letters, Sen. Charles E. Grassley
(R-Iowa) wrote in a letter Friday to Justice Department Inspector General
Glenn A. Fine: "It is . . . difficult to imagine why there should not have
been swift and severe consequences for anyone who knowingly signed . . . a
letter containing false statements. Anyone at the FBI who knew about that
kind of wrongdoing had an obligation to put a stop to it and report it
immediately."
A March 9 report by Fine bluntly stated that the FBI's use of the exigency
letters "circumvented" the law that governs the FBI's access to personal
information about U.S. residents.
The exigency letters, created by the FBI's New York office after the Sept.
11, 2001, attacks, told telephone providers that the FBI needed information
immediately and would follow up with subpoenas later. There is no basis in
the law to compel phone companies to turn over information using such
letters, Fine found, and in many cases, agents never followed up with the
promised subpoenas, he said.
But Fine's report made no mention of the FBI's subsequent efforts to
legitimize those actions with improperly prepared national security letters
last year.
Fine's report brought a deluge of criticism on the FBI, prompting a news
conference at which Director Robert S. Mueller III took responsibility for
the lapses. Some lawmakers immediately proposed curtailing the government's
expansive anti-terrorism powers under the USA Patriot Act.
In a letter to Fine that was released along with the March 9 report, Mueller
acknowledged that the bureau's agents had used unacceptable shortcuts,
violated internal policies and made mistakes in their use of exigent
circumstance letters.
Mueller also said he had banned the future use of such letters this month,
although he defended their value and denied that the agency had
intentionally violated the law.
Other FBI officials acknowledged widespread problems but said they involved
procedural and documentation failures, not intentional misgathering of
Americans' phone records. Mueller ordered a nationwide audit, which began
Friday, to determine if the inappropriate use of exigency letters went
beyond one headquarters unit.
"We wish, in retrospect, that we had learned about this sooner, corrections
had been made and the process was more transparent," FBI Assistant Director
John Miller said yesterday.
Fine's report said the bureau's counterterrorism office used the exigency
letters at least 739 times between 2003 and 2005 to obtain records related
to 3,000 separate phone numbers. FBI officials acknowledged that the process
was so flawed that they may have to destroy some phone records to keep them
from being used in the future, if the bureau does not find proof they were
gathered in connection with an authorized investigation.
Disciplinary action may be taken when the bureau completes an internal
audit, a senior FBI official said in an interview at headquarters Friday.
Ann Beeson, an attorney for the ACLU who has sued the FBI in an effort to
block some of its data requests, said that if the bureau cannot prove a link
between the letters and an ongoing investigation, its requests were "a total
fishing expedition."
The FBI agreed that one senior official, who spoke on the condition of
anonymity because of forthcoming House and Senate hearings on the matter,
would speak for the agency.
Lawmakers have begun to probe who knew about the use of the letters and why
the department did not act more swiftly to halt the practice. Grassley asked
that Fine turn over to the Senate Judiciary Committee copies of all FBI
e-mails related to the letters of demand, as well as transcripts of the
interviews Fine conducted on the issue.
The committee has scheduled a hearing for Wednesday, with Mueller as the
chief witness. On Tuesday, the House Judiciary Committee intends to question
Fine and FBI general counsel Valerie Caproni.
FBI and Justice Department officials said most of the letters at issue were
drafted by the Communications Analysis Unit (CAU), which comprises about a
dozen people assigned to analyze telephone records and other communications
for counterterrorism investigators. They sent the secret requests to three
companies -- AT&T, Verizon and a third firm whose identity could not be
learned. Since the 2001 terrorist attacks, the FBI has been paying the
companies' cost of supplying such records almost instantaneously in a form
that its agents can readily examine, according to the report and the senior
FBI official.
In each letter, the FBI asserted that "due to exigent circumstances, it is
requested that records for the attached list of telephone numbers be
provided." The bureau promised in most of the letters that subpoenas for the
same information "have been submitted to the U.S. Attorney's office who will
process and serve them formally."
But the inspector general's probe concluded that many of the letters were
"not sent in exigent circumstances" and that "there sometimes were no open
or pending national security investigations tied to the request," contrary
to what U.S. law requires. No subpoenas had actually been requested before
the letters were sent. The phone companies nonetheless promptly turned over
the information, in anticipation of getting a more legally viable document
later, FBI officials said.
The use of such letters was virtually "uncontrolled," said an FBI official
who was briefed on the issue in early 2005. By that fall, CAU agents had
begun creating spreadsheets to track phone records they had collected for a
year or more that were not covered by the appropriate documents, according
to FBI e-mails and interviews with officials.
A spokesman for AT&T declined to discuss the topic, referring questions to
the FBI. Verizon spokesman Peter Thonis , who would not confirm nor deny the
existence of an FBI contract with his firm, said that "every day Verizon
subpoena units respond to emergency requests from federal, state and local
law enforcement for particular calling records. After 9/11, of course,
Verizon responded to FBI emergency requests in terrorist matters, and we had
every reason to believe they were legitimate emergency situations."
The inspector general's report said that the wording of the exigency letters
was copied from a standard letter that the FBI's New York office used to
obtain urgently needed records after the 2001 terrorist bombings. When
officials from that office were later reassigned to create the CAU in
Washington, the senior FBI official said, "they brought their business
practices with them" and continued to use the same letter "for reasons that
I cannot explain."
But the unit was not authorized under FBI rules to make such requests, and
from the outset in 2003 it asked FBI field offices to submit the promised
legal follow-up documents. The offices rarely did so speedily, and in many
cases ignored the request altogether.
"In practice, if you have already got the records, the incentive to do the
paperwork is reduced," the senior FBI official said.
When a lawyer in the FBI's national security law branch, Patrice
Kopistansky, noted in late 2004 that the proper legal justifications were
frequently missing or extremely late, she did not advise agents to "change
their process," the senior official said. "Our advice was instead to . . .
use these letters only in true emergencies" and institute "covering
practices."
These included ensuring that the bureau's agents had opened a related
investigation and promptly sent a formal national security letter to provide
legal backing for the demand.
Bassem Youssef, who currently heads the CAU, raised concerns about the tardy
legal justifications shortly after he was assigned to the job in early 2005,
according to his lawyer, Steve Kohn.
"He discovered they were not in compliance, and then he reported that to his
chain of command. They defended the procedures and took no action," Kohn
said, adding that "their initial response was to deny the scope of the
problem."
Youssef has battled the FBI in court over whether he was denied a promotion
because of discrimination based on his ethnicity.
Eventually, the general counsel's office organized a meeting at headquarters
on Sept. 26, 2005, where the bureau considered a work-around: Its lawyers
proposed creating special, catch-all investigative files that could be used
to authorize quick phone-records seizures that did not involve open field
investigations.
But one official at the meeting, Youssef, argued that genuine emergency
requests for the records "were few and far between," according to an e-mail
summarizing the meeting that was reviewed by The Washington Post, and the
idea was never implemented. The account referred to efforts by one of the
bureau's top lawyers to brief "higher ups" in the agency about the problem.
"At some point, they told us there were not that many such letters" still in
use, the senior official said. "We believed the problem had resolved itself
. . . in retrospect, it never got resolved."
One reason that FBI officials did not act more quickly is that Kopistansky
and others in the general counsel's office did not review until May 2006
copies of any of the exigent circumstances letters sent to the phone
companies from 2003 to 2005. As a result, they were unaware that some of the
letters contained false statements about forthcoming subpoenas and urgent
deadlines, the senior official said.
Bureau officials ultimately decided to "clean up" the problem by writing
seven national security letters designed to provide legal backing for all
the telephone records requests that still needed it, the senior FBI official
said. In every case, these requests in 2006 covered records already in the
FBI's possession and lacked the required cover memos spelling out the
investigative requirements for the requests.
At no time did senior FBI officials outside the communications unit attempt
to tally how often the exigent circumstances letters had been used, with the
result that Mueller and others in senior management did not learn about the
scope of the problem until two months ago, when Fine informed them, the
senior official said.
"Jon" <Email_...@SomewhereOrOther.com> wrote in message
news:e95yBfYa...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Jon
of the command in the different DVDs, that have been produced.
That was tested on a test installation of Vista Ultimate OEM.
Happy digging.
--
Jon
"MICHAEL" <u15862...@dslr.net> wrote in message
news:eUsUfsYa...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Jon
Yes, I'm aware of a number of those methods. I believe I've achieved the
same for my own benefit.
I don't condone piracy, nor have any interest in it. I have a legitimately
purchased Vista DVD here. Like yourself, howerver, I also object to having
that legitimacy questioned by 'genuine validation' spyware - in the same way
as I would object to a having a listening bug planted into my home, for the
privilege of using a kettle. This is currently an ugly blot on an otherwise
decent product, blighting the work of the countless Microsoft employees who
have have made decent, worthwhile contributions to Vista. MS chose to
ignore the countless outcries of its legitimate customers against
validation, and if the consequence of that is the proliferation of methods
to completely bypass their activation procedure, then so be it.
So, personally, if I can install the product without the need for
activation, validation, or the need for a product key, then so much the
better.
--
Jon
"Chad Harris" <vistaneedsmuchowork.net> wrote in message
news:ujCUNyYa...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Mike Brannigan
reasons - usually for deployment purposes - none of which legitimize the use
of unlicensed software by continuously skipping your mandatory activation.
Please keep your political rants to your self and out of these peer to peer
support newsgroups for Windows Vista. There is no place for them here and
they only serve to needlessly lengthen your posts.
--
Mike Brannigan
"Chad Harris" <vistaneedsmuchowork.net> wrote in message
news:OXYt$lYaHH...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
Mike Brannigan
> For the sake of argument, cause I love to argue ...
> - where in the EULA does it
> state the exact amount of days before you must activate?
> Yes, a user is supposed to activate. No argument there.
> Where is the definitive amount of days listed in the EULA
> before a user is in violation?
>
> -Michael
The EULA does not need to state the number of days as this is subject to
change on time limited builds etc - the requirement is that you activate
when required as you are prompted to and ultimately if you fail to you will
be placed in reduced functionality mode. The deliberate evasion of this
activation is a breach of the EULA.
Personally abusive attacks only serve to weaken any argument you are trying
to put forward I suggest you try and post with a little more professionalism
or at the very least common courtesy.
--
Mike Brannigan
MICHAEL
"Mike Brannigan" <Mike.Brannigan@localhost> wrote in message
> "MICHAEL" <u15862...@dslr.net> wrote in message
> news:ez25UPY...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> For the sake of argument, cause I love to argue ...
>> - where in the EULA does it
>> state the exact amount of days before you must activate?
>> Yes, a user is supposed to activate. No argument there.
>> Where is the definitive amount of days listed in the EULA
>> before a user is in violation?
>>
>> -Michael
>
> The EULA does not need to state the number of days as this is subject to change on time
> limited builds etc - the requirement is that you activate when required as you are prompted
> to and ultimately if you fail to you will be placed in reduced functionality mode. The
> deliberate evasion of this activation is a breach of the EULA.
Just as I thought.
> Personally abusive attacks only serve to weaken any argument you are trying to put forward I
> suggest you try and post with a little more professionalism or at the very least common
> courtesy.
I don't like you, nor do I respect you. Your suggestion means about as much
to me as you do.... nada, nothing, zip, zilch, zero.
-Michael
Mike Brannigan
Harsh words to someone you do not know.
Maybe you should just extend everyone the same degree of common courtesy in
a public forum where you actually know very few people other then posters of
questions or replies to your own.
If you do have such an irrational dislike and lack of respect for me, then I
suggest you refrain from replying to my posts as doing so only solicits
further comment from someone you 'don't like or respect'
--
Mike Brannigan
MICHAEL
"Mike Brannigan" <Mike.Brannigan@localhost> wrote in message
> "MICHAEL" <u15862...@dslr.net> wrote in message
> news:OJ3gFcZa...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>
>> "Mike Brannigan" <Mike.Brannigan@localhost> wrote in message
>> news:9277B69D-B8A8-4037...@microsoft.com...
>>> "MICHAEL" <u15862...@dslr.net> wrote in message
>>> news:ez25UPY...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>> For the sake of argument, cause I love to argue ...
>>>> - where in the EULA does it
>>>> state the exact amount of days before you must activate?
>>>> Yes, a user is supposed to activate. No argument there.
>>>> Where is the definitive amount of days listed in the EULA
>>>> before a user is in violation?
>>>>
>>>> -Michael
>>>
>>> The EULA does not need to state the number of days as this is subject to change on time
>>> limited builds etc - the requirement is that you activate when required as you are prompted
>>> to and ultimately if you fail to you will be placed in reduced functionality mode. The
>>> deliberate evasion of this activation is a breach of the EULA.
>>
>> Just as I thought.
>>
>>> Personally abusive attacks only serve to weaken any argument you are trying to put forward
>>> I suggest you try and post with a little more professionalism or at the very least common
>>> courtesy.
>>
>> I don't like you, nor do I respect you. Your suggestion means about as much
>> to me as you do.... nada, nothing, zip, zilch, zero.
>>
>
> Harsh words to someone you do not know.
I know enough.
> Maybe you should just extend everyone the same degree of common courtesy in a public forum
> where you actually know very few people other then posters of questions or replies to your
> own.
> If you do have such an irrational dislike and lack of respect for me, then I suggest you
> refrain from replying to my posts as doing so only solicits further comment from someone you
> 'don't like or respect'
There you go again making more useless suggestions.
I'm here for the long haul, that may mean I'll even take the time to
respond to your prattle. I'll be sure to show you all the common
courtesy you deserve. Count on it.
-Michael
Chad Harris
your mouse and drive it accordingly. When you pay me for a publication and
you function as editor, then we can discuss your juvenile directions of how
I should comport my posts or write in general Mike.
Of course you would have to get a minimum of training to do so first.
Those aren't rants; their facts and you have a choice to read them or not.
You can also block the posts easily that you don't want to see rather than
attempt to edit or give writing instruction to someone who doesn't work for
you and is not paid by you.
I suggest you go buy the local newspaper or some other publication. I
understand what constitutes "legitimate use of Windows" and have only
recommended putting off activation to clear up problems created by MSFT's
lack of clear explanations, continual changes to a EULA that was bizarrely
out of touch with reality in the first place. Most of my recommendations
were replete with links to the legitimate uses of SkipRearm on Technet.
I have never advocated stealing software from MSFT or anyone else, so you
should perhaps reserve your admonitions for the millions of people who are
selling Vista for less than $10 in alleys in Asia, Europe, and other
countries who don't respect MSFT licensing and according to the wall maps
MSFT attorneys have given me, are responsible for the brunt of the piracy.
There are of course piracy setups that are large in the U.S. as well and
that's why Nancy Anderson is paid over a million dollars a year to supervise
their pursuit.
You could also call Brad Smith and tell him you want to join his staff and
work in the piracy division with Nancy.
CH
"Mike Brannigan" <Mike.Brannigan@localhost> wrote in message
news:07EB99F0-E19B-4036...@microsoft.com...
Scott
<Email_...@SomewhereOrOther.com> spake thusly:
>Sticking to the 'technical point at hand', the article should have been
>released on April Fools' Day. It's complete misinformation.
How is it misinformation? Brian Livingston is a well known Windows
guru.
--
Scott http://angrykeyboarder.com
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
NOTICE: In-Newsgroup (and therefore off-topic) comments on my sig will
be cheerfully ignored, so don't waste our time.
Scott
<Mike.Brannigan@localhost> spake thusly:
>Chad,
>
>The use of the well documented SkipRearm registry key does not allow a LEGAL
>use of the OS past the activation deadline.
I don't think he *technically* meant "legally".
A poor choice of wording I suppose.
Jon
news:hoerv2lha62auttv8...@4ax.com...
> How is it misinformation? Brian Livingston is a well known Windows
> guru.
>
> --
We all make mistakes, regardless of our history or reputation.
The article is in error, since if you set 'SkipRearm' to 1, in fact the
opposite should, and does happen - ie the resetting of the grace period
counter is skipped when the 'slmgr -rearm' command is run and the counter is
not reset to 30 days.
In other words, if you run the 'slmgr -rearm' command from an elevated
command prompt (followed by a reboot), the sole effect of that is to reset
the 'SkipRearm' key back to 0.
This is what this particular technet article states should happen with that
value, and that is what happens in my own experience.
Now, I've not researched the command with all the different DVD versions,
but this is how I currently understand and experience it. You are welcome to
correct me, if I've missed something.
That said, whether it's true or not, the article was a good read, and got me
thinking once more about the issues. This is the role of a good journalist,
for which I am grateful to the author.
--
Jon
Mike Brannigan
>
>> Harsh words to someone you do not know.
>
> I know enough.
>
>
> -Michael
>
Maybe you would like to share with me and the rest of us what you think you
"know" about me that make you have such hostility towards me.
Since we have never met or worked together I would personally like to hear
what you have to say on this, and how you come to form this opinion.
--
Mike Brannigan
MICHAEL
"Mike Brannigan" <Mike.Brannigan@localhost> wrote in message
Maybe I would.... then again, I'm rather sure most forum users here
could care less about your dirty laundry or your manic defects.
Wait for the email.
-Michael
Sims@discussions.microsoft.com John Sims
but my copy is alrady activated. any more sugs.
"Chad Harris" wrote:
> .. On a copy of Vista Ultimate that Microsoft released in New York City on
> Jan. 29, I found that changing SkipRearm from 0 to 1 allowed the command
> slmgr -rearm to postpone Vista's activation deadline eight separate times.
> After that, changing the 0 to 1 had no effect, preventing slmgr -rearm from
> moving the deadline. The use of slmgr -rearm 3 times, plus using SkipRearm 8
> times would eliminate Vista's activation nag screens for about one year (12
> periods of 30 days).
>
> .. On a copy of the upgrade version of Vista Home Premium that I bought in a
> retail store on Jan. 30, slmgr -rearm also worked 3 times and SkipRearm
> worked 8 times before losing their effect. This combination would, as with
> Vista Ultimate, permit a one-year use of Vista without nag screens
> appearing.
>
> .. On a copy of the full version of Vista Home Premium that I bought in a
GT
have had it for a month and have had 17 crashes due to it. The first one was
in the first 10 minutes. My company is at the leading edge for graphics,
games, music, and media. We all know that Vista is NOT a good thing. We are
looking into ways to convert to mac to avoid the billions of serious problems
with Microsoft Windows.
Dave
I've been running Vista for 21 months with very little trouble. I saw about
5 BSOD's in the first 9 months, due to the nVidia drivers.
Haven't seen one in the past year. Vista works very good.
--
Vista Home Premium 32 SP1
http://get.live.com/wlmail/overview
http://download.live.com/wlmail
"GT" <G...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5943EEFC-42A6-4D0F...@microsoft.com...
Ken Blake, MVP
wrote:
> If ANY one can run Vista successfully for a year I will be very surprised. I
> have had it for a month and have had 17 crashes due to it. The first one was
> in the first 10 minutes.
I don't want to get into an argument about this, but I'll tell you my
personal experience, which is very different from yours. I've been
running Vista here on my personal machine since RTM in November
2006--just short of two years. I have had zero crashes.
--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Rich
Solid, fast and dependable.
Amazing isn't it? what you thought you knew?
Rich
Mike Hall - MVP
Same here..
--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx
Roland
problem,which is my fault.I deleted the recycle bin icon and cant get the
right one back. Only a pasted shortcut which doesnt change from full to
empty.Any ideas. But seriously its fantastic.Fingers crossed for the future.
;)
"GT" <G...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5943EEFC-42A6-4D0F...@microsoft.com...
news.microsoft.com
news:ulbXJNOL...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
> Same here..
What do you guys do differently than everyone else then? What do you use
your PCs for other then surfing, email and these groups?
news.microsoft.com
news:r3d5f456k880umvu2...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 18:38:00 -0700, GT <G...@discussions.microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
>> If ANY one can run Vista successfully for a year I will be very
>> surprised. I
>> have had it for a month and have had 17 crashes due to it. The first one
>> was
>> in the first 10 minutes.
>
>
> I don't want to get into an argument about this, but I'll tell you my
> personal experience, which is very different from yours. I've been
> running Vista here on my personal machine since RTM in November
> 2006--just short of two years. I have had zero crashes.
>
If all you do is these groups, email and a little surfing, I doubt even W95
would crash.
news.microsoft.com
news:un6dH$NLJHA...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Been running since Feb. 17, 2007 with nary a hitch.
> Solid, fast and dependable.
What do you use your PC for other than groups, email and surfing the web?
How much software have you added? Games? Graphic software etc?
Paul Montgomery
>What do you use your PC for other than groups, email and surfing the web?
>How much software have you added? Games? Graphic software etc?
Download/install a lot of trash, expect problems.
You are obviously doing just that. Those who don't aren't
experiencing your problems.
DevilsPGD
<G...@discussions.microsoft.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>If ANY one can run Vista successfully for a year I will be very surprised. I
>have had it for a month and have had 17 crashes due to it. The first one was
>in the first 10 minutes. My company is at the leading edge for graphics,
>games, music, and media. We all know that Vista is NOT a good thing. We are
>looking into ways to convert to mac to avoid the billions of serious problems
>with Microsoft Windows.
Since I pulled my nVidia cards and replaced them with ATI (about three
months before the "nVidia drivers are horrible" news stories), I haven't
had a single bluescreen on my desktop.
I've had one reinstall of Vista, when I went from x86 to SP1 x64.
If your development staff are not able to cope, I might suggest that you
review your hiring practices.
Gordon
> "Mike Hall - MVP" <mikehall@remove_mvps.com> wrote in message
> news:ulbXJNOL...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>
>> Same here..
>
> What do you guys do differently than everyone else then? What do you
> use your PCs for other then surfing, email and these groups?
>
>>
>>
Mine hasn't crashed either and I use mine for work.....Excel, Word and
Outlook.
news.microsoft.com
news:eQXNrwO...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Vista is great,running fast as hell,no crashes at all. One tiny
> problem,which is my fault.I deleted the recycle bin icon and cant get the
> right one back. Only a pasted shortcut which doesnt change from full to
> empty.Any ideas. But seriously its fantastic.Fingers crossed for the
> future. ;)
>
Just don't use it for work or let the kids play games on it, even the games
PCs come with these days. ;-)
news.microsoft.com
news:h6m5f4d07cfp63sfg...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 23:34:36 -0500, "news.microsoft.com"
> <no...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>What do you use your PC for other than groups, email and surfing the web?
>>How much software have you added? Games? Graphic software etc?
>
> Download/install a lot of trash, expect problems.
Trash? You mean we're not supposed to use our PCs for work (graphics in my
case) or our kids use them for pleasure (games)?
>
> You are obviously doing just that. Those who don't aren't
> experiencing your problems.
Then of what use is a computer you can't use for work and the kids can't use
for fun?
Telstar
"news.microsoft.com" <no...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:%23$wzF0OLJ...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
I use it for video development and DVD mastering. It has never, ever
crashed.
Non Sequitur!
with making high end media as the OP says...
lol
when you push vista, its crappy nature shows.
"Ken Blake, MVP" <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:r3d5f456k880umvu2...@4ax.com...
Non Sequitur!
lol...
childs play...
use some real memory intensive programs like premiere or a 3d application,
and then come back
Or use flash, frontpage, corel, photoshop (and a few others) all at the same
time loaded like I do...
do media with sonar, acid, floops, and several others at the same time as I
do...
you will see that vista is far slower and more unstable than XP ever was
"Gordon" <gordon...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:eNSEEDQL...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Non Sequitur!
dork FRANK will appear
saying that Vista is the BEST OS ever...
all he does is troll on newsgroups from day to night! lol
"news.microsoft.com" <no...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:eSpCwyOL...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
Non Sequitur!
MS isnt stable with their own software... you expect it to work well with
third party?
lol
You are totally right, I too create high end content and understand you
completely..
I see a big difference between XP and Vista..
now im using vista but I have upgraded to the fastest computer in the
market!
and I STILL SEE a lag! lol
vista stinks!
"news.microsoft.com" <an...@anon.net> wrote in message
news:#AVirKQL...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Non Sequitur!
> review your hiring practices
Yeah there should be ONE simple rule for hiring..
You start the interview with ONE question: DO YOU LIKE VISTA
If the answer is YES then he is a MORON and you wont hire him.. NEXT
PLEASE!!!
lol
"DevilsPGD" <spam_na...@crazyhat.net> wrote in message
news:4aj5f4lkg6mgh02bg...@4ax.com...
Non Sequitur!
everyone how dumb frank is...lol
Frank said>>>>
" You think things like being
able to delete the recycle bin is bad design, whereas most think it's a
good "feature".
But you seem to think everyone thinks like you and the fact is they don't.
You are in a very small minority with your personal opinion about Vista.
Live with it. Vista is the very best OS available today."
Lol what an idiot this stupid frank is
"Roland" <rol...@live.com> wrote in message
news:eQXNrwO...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Non Sequitur!
"Telstar" <none@none> wrote in message
news:O7w5MVQL...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Gordon
>> work.....Excel, Word and Outlook.
>
> lol...
>
> childs play...
>
> use some real memory intensive programs like premiere or a 3d
> application, and then come back
Well MOST users do NOT use those sorts of applications. The vast
majority of PCs and laptops are used in a corporate environment in
which, most users use office. Period.
Your situation is NOT common. Also many high-end video and graphics
works are actually done on NON-windows OSs anyway.
Gordon
> vista is 15-20 % slower than xp
>
And how do you KNOW that Vista is slow on the machine of the poster you
replied to?
Now who's the DORK?
the granter of sina
of different machines and comparing
> Now who's the DORK?
That would include you
"Gordon" <gordon...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:eXAsOuR...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
DevilsPGD
<on...@rret.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>> If your development staff are not able to cope, I might suggest that you
>> review your hiring practices
>
>Yeah there should be ONE simple rule for hiring..
>
>You start the interview with ONE question: DO YOU LIKE VISTA
>
>If the answer is YES then he is a MORON and you wont hire him.. NEXT
>PLEASE!!!
>
>lol
That might explain why your guys are still stuck in 2001's operating
system.
the granter of sina
Are you out of your mind???
There are HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS in the world!
"Gordon" <gordon...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:eawyYtR...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
cqui3
"DevilsPGD" <spam_na...@crazyhat.net> a écrit dans le message de
news:4aj5f4lkg6mgh02bg...@4ax.com...
I have run Vista almost from the day it appeared on the market, and I have
not
have a single blue screen. With XP I had quite a few.
mike-cow
The core of pretty much ALL problems with Vista is bad drivers/hardware.
So in the end it all boils down to this: STABLE HARDWARE = STABLE VISTA.
I've seen quite a few BSOD while running Vista, 99% of them caused by
hardware/drivers... While you *could* argue that Vista should be able to
handle crappy drivers, I really think the hardware manufacturers should
be able to produce proper drivers...
--
mike-cow
- -While I try to give as safe advise as possible, and use alot of
effort in making sure it's accurate, I can't take responsibility of
problems arising from the help I give. In the end it's you who need to
decide what's the safest way to manage your computer.-
PvdG42
news:421EB300-0D2E-42BD...@microsoft.com...
>
>
> I have run Vista almost from the day it appeared on the market, and I have
> not
> have a single blue screen. With XP I had quite a few.
Please don't confuse the trolls with facts ;-)
They become agitated and even more obnoxious.
mike-cow
PvdG42;859698 Wrote:
> Please don't confuse the trolls with facts ;-)
> They become agitated and even more obnoxious.
Please don't confuse carefully picked hardware and a bit of luck with
fact though. :)
Steve Thackery
> I
> have had it for a month and have had 17 crashes due to it.
Running continuously (never switched off, only rebooted when Windows Updates
requires it) for 20 months since January 2006.
Zero crashes, zero freezes, zero BSODs. For me, it's the most reliable and
resilient NT-family OS yet.
I made sure the hardware was fully compatible before installing, of course.
I don't know what a "power user" is, but mine gets comprehensively thrashed
a lot of the time:
* the full range of MS Office products in regular use
* production of technical documentation and technical drawings
* software development using VS 2008 and Delphi 2007
* graphics editing using PSP and other products
* audio editing using Adobe Audition
* video editing using Ulead and Pinnacle products
* video conversion and DVD authoring
* web development using various products
* extensive use of Virtual PC 2007 to run XP and VirtualBox to run various
Linux distros
* plus the usual browsing, emailing, etc.
Vista definitely isn't broken for me. If it is for you, I suggest you look
at your hardware or drivers.
But I would say this: nobody should upgrade from XP unless they need the new
features (what's the point?) or are just interested in learning about it.
And if you do upgrade, make damn sure your hardware and drivers are OK for
Vista.
SteveT
Ken Blake, MVP
Whether you are right about what would crash doesn't matter, because
your guess about how little I use the computer for is very much
incorrect. I use it for much more, and run more and bigger
applications than most people do. The only respect in which a
significant number of people here are likely to exceed my personal use
is that I don't run any games (other than chess).
Talking about the number of programs running at once, by the way, at
the moment I have ten applications open on the task bar.
Frank
> So graphic designers, web designers and sound engineers are not common? LOL
>
> Are you out of your mind???
>
> There are HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS in the world!
I seriously doubt there are "hundreds of millions' and I know you're not
a graphics designer!...LOL!
Loser!
Frank
------------------------------
hehehe...hey bozo, too stupid to get your one little install of Vista to
run properly?
It's because you're a loser, an idiot and a moron.
That is a lethal combo!...LOL!
John Barnett MVP
--
--
John Barnett MVP
Windows XP Associate Expert
Windows Desktop Experience
Web: http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org
Web: http://vistasupport.mvps.org
Web: http://www.silversurfer-guide.com
The information in this mail/post is supplied "as is". No warranty of any
kind, either expressed or implied, is made in relation to the accuracy,
reliability or content of this mail/post. The Author shall not be liable for
any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the
use of, or inability to use, information or opinions expressed in this
mail/post..
"Mike Hall - MVP" <mikehall@remove_mvps.com> wrote in message
news:ulbXJNOL...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
> Same here..
>
> --
> Mike Hall - MVP
> How to construct a good post.. http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm How to use
> the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc
> Mike's Window - My Blog.. http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx
>
>
>
>
the granter of sina
You know shit.. that's what your brains are made of
Frank you have no idea how stupid you are ok? Get lost worthless idiot
"Frank" <f...@notspam.cmm> wrote in message
news:#1C3BYUL...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Frank
>> and I know you're not a graphics designer!...LOL!
>
>
> You know shit.. that's what your brains are made of
>
> Frank you have no idea how stupid you are ok? Get lost worthless idiot
>
Vista hate campaign simply because I'm too incompetent to figure out how
to properly install, configure and run Vista.
That total loser and idiot moron would be you!
Ringmaster
How does it feel to be labeled a fool when Microsoft agrees with what
I said about UAC and you've been exposed as a clueless moron who can
only throw the same feces around over and over like the retarded
little monkey we all know you are.
the granter of sina
Oh yes you are!
"Frank" <f...@npam.cmm> wrote in message news:gcvql4$jfe$1...@aioe.org...
the granter of sina
he doesn't really understand how big a clown he is.. and he keeps going at
it again and again..
what an idiot
"Ringmaster" <big...@VistaGeneralCircus.net> wrote in message
news:jbr6f4tqbdkblab76...@4ax.com...
gordon.bur...@gmail.com
> I know this from experience after dual booting XP andVistaon a multitude
> of different machines and comparing
>
>
<sigh> but NOT the OP's machine --- dork.
Frank
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 08:14:46 -0700, Frank <f...@notspam.cmm> wrote:
>
>
>>capin' crunch, the help desk worker wrote:
>>
>>------------------------------
>>
>>hehehe...hey bozo, too stupid to get your one little install of Vista to
>>run properly?
>>It's because you're a loser, an idiot and a moron.
>>That is a lethal combo!...LOL!
>
>
> How does it feel to be labeled a fool when Microsoft agrees with what
> I said about UAC...
No they don't agree with what you said about UAC.
You took a statement and attached your thoughts to it.
Something you do all the time.
and you've been exposed as a clueless moron who can
> only throw the same feces around over and over like the retarded
> little monkey we all know you are.
No, I'm not the incompetent piece of shit who can't get one little
install of Vista to run properly.
That asshole loser, monkey brained drunken PIG is you!...LOL!
the granter of sina
make my conclusion that vista is always slower than xp
<gordon.bur...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:00c1d768-69c2-4492...@e17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Bruce Chambers
> If ANY one can run Vista successfully for a year I will be very surprised. I
> have had it for a month and have had 17 crashes due to it. The first one was
> in the first 10 minutes.
You shouldn't judge the OS based solely on your own lack of ability.
Millions of people are using Vista every day, without problem; why
couldn't you?
> My company is at the leading edge for graphics,
> games, music, and media.
Why do I find that so hard to believe, given your opening sentences?
What're you using, crayons, checkers, tin cans, and paper?
> We all know that Vista is NOT a good thing. We are
> looking into ways to convert to mac to avoid the billions of serious problems
> with Microsoft Windows.
>
Good luck with that.
--
Bruce Chambers
Help us help you:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin
Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell
The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
killed a great many philosophers.
~ Denis Diderot
the granter of sina
blundering defeat...
he will go on saying vista is great even after several years when people
will look back at this version of windows and say
"boy MS really fuked that one up!"
"Frank" <f...@npam.cmm> wrote in message news:gcvsbu$sc9$1...@aioe.org...
Frank
> blundering defeat...
I now believe that you are also sick in your stupid, empty head.
Face it loser, Vista is, and you're not.
the granter of sina
with reality
"Frank" <f...@npam.cmm> wrote in message news:gd0970$g1h$1...@aioe.org...
Earle Horton
account. The KB note that describes the problem said to create a new user
account and manually copy all my files there. The description of the
problem was that a data file had become corrupted or that the user account
had "entered a backup state"(????). I was not satisfied with the
explanation, nor was any advice given on how to prevent a recurrence...
--
Earle Horton -- ear...@terra.comx
Ringmaster
<gra...@yan.sina> wrote:
>SO? You believe a whole bunch of stuff that have absolutely no connection
>with reality
Frank summer vacation video: Yes it involves sheep.
Frank
> SO? You believe a whole bunch of stuff that have absolutely no
> connection with reality
>
Peter Foldes
See the following
How to restore the Recycle Bin in Vista
http://www.winhelponline.com/articles/141/1/How-to-restore-the-Recycle-bin-icon-that-has-been-accidentally-deleted.html
How to hide the delete Recycle Bin command so you do not do the above again
http://www.winhelponline.com/blog/more-on-overriding-delete-command-in-the-recycle-bin-context-menu/
--
Peter
Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
"Roland" <rol...@live.com> wrote in message news:eQXNrwO...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Vista is great,running fast as hell,no crashes at all. One tiny
> problem,which is my fault.I deleted the recycle bin icon and cant get the
> right one back. Only a pasted shortcut which doesnt change from full to
> empty.Any ideas. But seriously its fantastic.Fingers crossed for the future.
> ;)
>
>
Non Sequitur!
You have no idea how hard I could break you....
Im just too lazy to waste so much energy on an a total worthless imbecile
like you
"Frank" <f...@notspam.cmm> wrote in message
news:uxUWhUZL...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
news.microsoft.com
news:48f3d795$1...@newsgate.x-privat.org...
> SO? You believe a whole bunch of stuff that have absolutely no connection
> with reality
My job has absolutely no connection with reality? My job pays the bills. I
think YOU lost touch with reality thinking no one should use a PC to help
support themselves. Kids aren't supposed to use their PCs for fun? What
are they supposed to use them for? You really did lose touch with
reality................
Frank
> reflection your limitations on to others again franky poo?
>
> You have no idea how hard I could break you....
>
> Im just too lazy to waste so much energy on an a total worthless
> imbecile like you
hahaha...you couldn't break wind let along break me (whatever in the
fukk that means in your little demented delusional loser brain).
Face it asshole, I, along with everyone else in here constantly kick
your stupid, ignorant ass all over this ng.
You're just to dumb to even realize it.
Loser!
Non Sequitur!
"Frank" <f...@npam.cmm> wrote in message news:gd2f4v$oi3$1...@aioe.org...
Frank
> reflecting your limitations onto others again franky poo?
I'm not the dumb fukkin idiot moron loser who works at a help desk and
Ringmaster
But Frank... you ARE the dummy always lying your ass off loon that has
crap fall out your mouth and makes an ass of himself on a daily basis.
Has it sunk in yet that Microsoft sided with me and you were dead
wrong about UAC?
Well?
Just like your lame attempts to blame me for slow file copying. Guess
what asshole, Microsoft sided with me on that issue too.
That leaves you just the dumb putz and jackass you are.
Now go to bed. You're an old goat and need your rest. Go dream about
your sheep.
Frank
> Has it sunk in yet that Microsoft sided with me and you were dead
> wrong about UAC?
>
You're out of your fukkin mind...what's left of it.
First of all, I never stated anything at all about UAC. If UAC bothers
you then disable it you fukkin idiot! I have it enabled on all but one
of my Vista Ultimate installs.
> Well?
Well what asshole? You're stupid? Yes! You're incompetent? Yes! You're a
fukkin piece of shit useless asshole loser? Absolutely?
Did MS side with you about UAC? Of course they didn't. You're a
meaningless dipshit fuckwit loser who can't figure out how to use Vista.
>
> Just like your lame attempts to blame me for slow file copying.
Face it cock sucker, you have a fukked up install of Vista.
Guess
> what asshole, Microsoft sided with me on that issue too.
Guess what asshole, you still have a fukked up install of Vista, you
cock sucking son of a PIG!
>
> That leaves you just the dumb putz and jackass you are.
Sorry butt-fukker, but [sic], unlike the loser you are I have all good,
fully functional installs of Vista!
>
> Now go to bed. You're an old goat and need your rest. Go dream about
> your sheep.
Go suck bubba's shit encrusted dick after his pulls it our of your shit
filled ass, you dumb fukkin Rube and you dream of having a good install
of Vista...like I have!...LOL!
Loser!
Non Sequitur!
> fukkin piece of shit useless asshole loser? Absolutely?
YOU SHOULD HAVE RAN FOR PRESIDENT
"Frank" <f...@npam.cmm> wrote in message news:gd429l$lm3$1...@aioe.org...
Alias says BAAAAAAAAAA
"Non Sequitur!" <on...@rret.com> wrote in message
news:48f7...@newsgate.x-privat.org...
>> Well what asshole? You're stupid? Yes! You're incompetent? Yes! You're a
>> fukkin piece of shit useless asshole loser? Absolutely?
>
Mr. Arnold
But, I have been out-spoofed, and out-abused!
Congratulations to the Ultimate Spoofer / Abuser!
I hand over the Crown.
These are some of my Spoofs, and Aliases
Anti on Chicken Little(s)
Chicken Little Albright
Dan S-illy aka Barney Phife
Doctor Bee
General Paul Montgomery
General Paul Montgomery1
General Paul Montgomery2
General Paul Montgomery3
General Paul Montgomery4
General Paul Montgomery5
General Paul Montgomery6
General Paul Montgomery7
Hunting for JackA$$
Junk Yard Dog
Kotex Queen Clear Windows
Mick Murphy
Montgumdrop
Mr. Arnold
MontGumDropped1 Paul
Paul MontDenturesDropped
Paul Montgomery
Paul Montgomery 9000
Paul Montgumdrop
Pauly
Ringmonster
Sudden Impact
Tall Tales Albright
The Bee
The Big Ticket
The Hornet
Van Helsing the Albright Hunter
"unknown" wrote:
>
Kronegger@discussions.microsoft.com Dietmar Kronegger
2008 and best for 2009.. cheers mate ,, and keep them helfull tip going.
D. Kronegger.
Peter Foldes
--
Peter
Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
"Dietmar Kronegger" <Dietmar Kron...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5BC6266A-FB25-40F4...@microsoft.com...