Open the flood Gates of rumors...

The BBQ Pit
21

Oh yes you have.
WInframe? Metaframe ?ICA client bundled on every flavour of Windows since 98SE and the reason for Terminal Server’s existence ? It is the function that allows publication and distribution of apps and resources as well as remote connections and with the recent buyout is set to become a whole lot more important.

MS have been designed their products and sharing codes in close cooperation with these guys for years now. Talk is that “XP” as a term was borrowed from Citrix’s XP product as a signal of their integration od Extended Platform.

The licensce activation procedure is carbon copy citrix stuff and in corporations that use it has never been a source of complaint…but now that Bill’s boys are asking to do the same thing the world is up in arms.

On the concept of having your info recorded I can see both sides and you are all correct in many things you say. Can I suggest though keeping the vitriol for something worth getting worked up about.

22

And that, my friends is why Dictionary.com couldn’t find a reference :wink:
I’m not convinced that this is going to be as big an issue as its going to be made out to be. This is all still in Beta remember, it’s not the final version.

23

Try Thesarus in word for a better explanation that Sulfuric acid.

Twisty I said I was sorry about the party remark (tater even told me I was being too mean).Please dont go looking for post mistakes because you’ll find 'em boy will you ever find 'em. :)I take it all back. Forgive me or we might wind up having that PIT spelling contest after all.:smiley:

I’m running RC1 here and the activation process is the same. If it has made it to a release canditate then I would suggest it may very well make it to the RTM version. Judging by peoples response it may change soon after though.

24

BTW, I was commenting that you actually had the correct spelling of the word!!!

25

As the law stands right now (sorry, no cites, just AFAIK), companies are free to make a variety of licensing schemes for software sale. The XP product activation is one such scheme. Legally they can do this, and when you buy and install XP, you must agree to let their software report your computer configuration, etc, back “home”. But some of us don’t trust Microsoft with any kind of our personal information, but with XP, there’s no way around that. They say it’s confidential, but if you don’t want to take that risk, you’re out of luck. What lawmakers (and judges) need to realize is that these license agreements are not fair, and should be unconstitutional. Once you buy a product, you should be able to use it in any way you see fit, provided you don’t break any laws. So if you want to use one copy of the XP operating system at home (on one PC), then you should be free to do so in a manner that doesn’t require “phoning home”. The next license agreement from MS might just ask you to pay $0.01 per hour that your computer uses windows. Why should they have any control over what you do with something you buy? Only the government should have any kind of control over things you buy, and that only to stop you from breaking laws. Course MS will just lobby to pass a law saying everyone should do what MS says.:rolleyes:

It’s already happening with the DMCA. It’s impossible to obtain DVD playback software on your linux computer since the DVD industry doesn’t provide it. Who are they to say you have to run windows in order to use something you bought? Just because there’s a potential for you to copy the DVD? Then ban speech and writing, cause those are tools of devil worshipping DVD pirates.

This arguement is not about being able to pirate stuff. This about being able to use what you buy, and not have your rights infringed upon. Want to stop pircay of XP or DVDs? Then set steep fines for piracy, catch a couple of hundred people who do it, and publicize. When they break the law punish them, don’t pre-emptively strike with XP registration and CSS crap that restricts fair use. I’m sure if people thought there was a good chance of getting caught and tens of thousands of dollars in possible fines they would stop pirating, so everyone else can go on about their business.

26

You know, you can take out a rental car, but according to your contract, you can not drive it where ever you want, at whatever speed you want, etc. There are restrictions. I don’t see the justice department all over this.

The last thing you want is the government having ultimate control over what you buy. Remember the USSR, the Chinese economy 25 years ago? WTF, is that what you want. Some US government bureaucrat reviewing software and deciding that dBase3 is what you should be using?

27

Let’s reverse this argument, China Guy. From articles I’m willing to provide, Microsoft is scheduling shut-down dates on all it’s OS software. After the time set by them, the support is over. It doesn’t mean it’s not operatble, it means it isn’t supported.

So, we’re looking at a trend moving towards verification… complete verification. If you can’t prove to Microsoft that your system meets their requirements, they shut your system down. Not just MS products, mind you, your whole fucking system.

You got Linux? Forget it working. You got anything else? Forget it. MS has your system.

Essentially, you’re a pawn to Microsoft’s commands. They have a problem with your set-up? See ya! Talk to you when you comply.

From what I gather from this limited discussion so far, China Guy, is that you see nothing wrong with approach for Microsoft. In fact, you seem to embrace it.

What, pray tell, doesn’t bother you about this?

Are you willing to let them, or whoever, check you system, at all costs?

I know I’m on, and somewhat avoiding the obvious analogy of the slippery slope, but fuck, I have to, at what point does this bother you? What exactly do you think is their right?

And why, frankly, are you so protective of these intrusive measures, regardless of legality?
Oh, and this?

A whole shit-storm grew out of the fact that a company in someplace Northeast of me wired up their rental car to monitor and charge it’s user whenever it went over 65 MPH.

Are you saying that’s right?

*If I sound overly aggressive tonight, don’t take offense. I’m looking for an open discussion, I just may be wording it more harshly than I’d like. Right now, I think it sounds great, but I don’t want to wake up regretting this post.

28

Not true. You can dual boot OSes, and what happens on WinXP has absolutely NO impact on other OSes installed.

You have not proven this yet. I’d like to see some pretty damn solid cites for this claim.

29

CNote, your paranoia is overwhelming.

30

Got a cite for that?

The claim of what? That if you adjust, reconfigure, or otherwise mess with your system beyond the set standards that Microsoft allows, it will disable your system until re-register it with MS?

If that’s what you’re after, fine. I’ll dig through the sites where I originally read that stuff.

I didn’t make it up for the fun of it, just to goat you. And I didn’t read about it on some extreme viewpoint site. I read about it going about my daily routine.

But if that’s what you’re after, fine. Just clarify it for me, if you will.

It’s only because you’re all against me.
Seriously? Listen Spoofe, I may get worked up over this when I see people willingly, and almost without a thought, give up liberties that I take to heart.

The idea of letting an app ‘phone home’ for whatever reason, without my control or knowledge, will continue today, tomorrow, and as long as I live on God’s green earth and continue to breath… ummm… it’s an issue I feel very strongly about.

I get especially get worked up about it when people say to me, “Oh, calm down and accept it already, sheesh. It’s not a big deal.”

Well, it sure seems like the slippery slope to me.

31

As of right now, no, I have no article or paper that distinctly says that. I do, however, have my system dual-booted with Win98, and even when I let WinXP lock me out, I was still able to boot into 98. My other evidence are friends that are dualbooting 5 OSes (WinXP, Win200, Win98, SUSE Linux, and Red Hat Linux). They have been able to boot up every OS after they had XP locks them out.

Now, where’s YOUR evidence for your claim?

No, the claim that it phones home. So far, all I’ve seen are passing quips of it phoning home in a couple publications. That’s it. I have not heard any credible evidence that it does this, and it has not happened from my computer at all (And I’ve been running XP since the Beta started).

32

Just to preemptively clarify since I kinda fucked this up…I have a lot of friends in the Beta with me, and they Dualboot between XP and one or two other OSes (Out of those 5).

33

I came back here to see what you had written, monster104, and while I’m still going to search for my cites (Honestly, I’m not trying dick around with it, but quite frankly, I simply don’t feel like looking all over the place trying to find it right now- it’s been a long day. I will post it, however, and regardless of how this discussion progresses) I’m curious about one of your comments.

If I read it right, you say that XP locked you out when you let it lock you out. To begin with, I’m not following that part. What do you mean by, “let”?

Secondly, and the main gist of my post right now, is- Has XP locked you out at all when you didn’t let it? If so, why?

And just so it’s clear, this seems to me to be ancillary argument to what really ticks me off, which is, the phone home aspect.

*Not that shutting your OS down is any fun.

34

Before they announced what hardware changes are allowed before reactivation is required, I tinkered a whole bunch with the hardware in my system and came up with a general idea. By letting it lock me out, I meant that I purposely changed enough hardware for the lock-out to occur (And reactivating it was a snap - I called over the phone, it took me about 2 minutes).

Nope, hasn’t happened yet. I’ve heard horror stories about Office XP’s activation (which is much more stringent that WinXP). I believe people sometimes confuse the two.

BTW, I’ll give my personal statement on the matter: I am against product activation. However, if MS wishes to include it in their EULA, then that’s entirely up to them. I would be willing to accept XP ‘phoning home’ as long as it does not contain any personally identifiable info (I haven’t read anything solid about phoning home, I’ve only heard stuff in rumor mills and such, so I’m skeptical). Despite what people think, MS actually has a very good track record of the data they obtain from customers.

FWIW though, I think XP is a good enough OS to endure WPA, but I would still rather not have it.

35

CnoteChris, no worries. We disagree. I don’t see the activation as being the evil Big Brother that you do. From what I’ve read on the system, this is not a phone home system. From the above posts, it sure appears that shutting down XP does not affect other operating systems on your computer.

I live in China and there is a huge problem here with pirated software. Actually, we call it shareware. Sure, I’d rather have free software, but I can’t blame MSFT for trying to protect their product.

36

Okay dokey, here are the sites/cites I promised-
*Time out. I typed out that last sentence only seconds ago, before I began what I initially thought would be an extensive search for references to your, “So far, all I’ve seen are passing quips of it (XP) phoning home in a couple publications. That’s it.” comment.

I typed it up so I could cut and paste and cut and paste from one window to another back to this reply window.

Well, straight out of the box, as it were, I ran across all I needed.

From Microsoft’s own web site detailing XP and WPA-

So, is that enough proof for ya?

*I’m being smug because a) I appear to be right, and b) It took all of two seconds to find.

When these rare instances happen, I gotta gloat.

Anyrate, to get back to what irks me- I don’t like information about my systems specs, it’s configuration, any of it, being sent to anyone else, regardless of how it’s used.

Something, and maybe I don’t know what it is about that process, ticks me off.

In my opinion, MS is checking up on me because they feel I’m dishonest and need to be checked.

Again, that’s not a mentality I’m currently willing, or ever eager, to embrace.

To me, it sends the wrong message to consumers. When large corporations act in ways that go beyond what even our own government recognizes as off-limits, I voice my opposition.

*I should add that much of my opinion on this topic was learned, and how I got directed to the MS site linked to above, was a result of reading this article- Fred Langa, Is Windows XP’s ‘Product Activation’ A Privacy Risk? It’s a very good read.

37

Um, Cnote…you said XP phones home to MS. However, your own cite contradicts that.

XP doesn’t phone home. There is no secret transfer of information, as I’ve contended this whole time. XP simply checks the configuration file to make sure that it and the current hardware configuration do indeed match.

You send MS the information once to get the activation code. After that, you may never again have to interact with MS again (unless, of course, you change too many components and you have to reactivate).

38

Usage of software is not a “liberty”. It is a “privilege”. As for the privacy issue… as others have pointed out, XP does not give Microsoft unfettered access to your system. Those are similar claims that have, in the past been leveled against MSN, AOL, Earthlink, and other such companies, and have all been proven false. Any talk about “Big Brother” or the like is merely Anti-Microsoft nonsense.

39

I knew you were going to highlight that line, I just knew it.

You quote that line, and I quote this line, “The product does check itself from time to time to see if it is activated and if it is still on the same PC on which it was originally activated”.

We’re parsing shit big-time, monster104 (It’s not like Microsoft is being anything but unambigouis here, the jerks) but I’d suggest you’re taking this parsing too far.

What, exactly, does the line, “time to time” reference then, if it doesn’t phone home on it’s own? Only that it does that during the initial registration? That doesn’t even make sense.

I don’t go back and re-register my version of Win 98 from “time to time” because I have time to kill. I did it once and that was it. What the hell is this “time to time” stuff if it isn’t on it’s own?

I mean, come on, they’re saying it. It checks back to mommy… errr… correction there. Before my computer starts to smoke, I should clarify that and say, “My big brother.”

40

Wait a minute, I didn’t even get to this line before I got all reactionary up there-

Upon further reflection, and actual reading, there’s a contradiction there. You state that it only does once, during activation, but earlier above, you state that XP locked you out after major reconfigurations to your system.

What, exactly, was MS checking that against… and how did they know you reconfigured your system?