PDA

View Full Version : Microsoft trying to put stuff in your PC without asking? WTH?!?



JediTricks
07-03-2002, 12:50 AM
Someone just sent me this link http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/25956.html
and, if accurate, seems like people should know about this.

Basically, what it's saying is that if you were concerned about one of the recent MS Windows Media Player security holes, and got a patch from microsoft.com/technet to fix this, you would be shown an agreement that, if agreed-to, allows Microsoft admin access to your computer at any time they wish without even telling you. MS is saying they can legally remotely upload whatever file they want to "update" your MS Media Player whenever they want no matter how buggy, virused, or incompatible with your other software this "update" is all without asking or even telling you they're doing it.

And the most insulting part is, this comes up on a critical patch that is filling a security hole they allowed in the first place.

LTBasker
07-03-2002, 01:09 AM
Brought to you by the same people who made Windows ME which is imcompatible with every single AOL version and even itself.

2-1B
07-03-2002, 01:23 AM
:eek: Microsoft are taking the **** !

SWAFMAN
07-03-2002, 01:33 AM
JT, I recall talk about this a while back. One of the most insulting parts is when they claimed that, although the changes do permit them to download a list of every single file you play via Windows Media Player, that they do not maintain any information about the identity of the user, and that it is purely being done so Micro$oft can continue to engineer their media player to best meet the usage needs of their customers.

Give me a freaking break. Does anyone honestly believe that if Bill Gates could find out whether the U.S. secretary of commerce, or the U.S. attorney general, or a Supreme Court Justice was watching mpegs of 12 year olds in bed with farm animals, that he wouldn't use that information to try to get the lawsuits against his company dropped?

Jason B
07-03-2002, 06:51 AM
Yep. So what? ;) Yeah, this has been known about for a while. Anyone remember Admiral LSD (http://www.sirstevesguide.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4114)?
Some thing else I found interesting: A lot of you know what Ad-Aware is. It's a program that searches for Spy-ware, and deltes it. Well, there's a program that you install, and in the installation process, it removes Ad-Aware!! Story here (http://www.lavasoftusa.com/latest.html).

Forhekset
07-03-2002, 07:53 AM
Actually, that clause has been in the EULA for Windows Media Player for some time now. It's nothing new. WMP sucks, and the latest version is a big-time resource hog anyway.

pthfnder89
07-03-2002, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by Forhekset
Actually, that clause has been in the EULA for Windows Media Player for some time now. It's nothing new. WMP sucks, and the latest version is a big-time resource hog anyway.

Exactly. I try to avoid using it whenever I can anyway. Although I have to say that even Windows Media Player is a big step up from Real Media Player. If I could find the guy who programmed RMP I would tape his eyes open and force him to watch endless repeats of the Star Wars Holiday Special aas punishment. Immediately upon installing it it finds every single media file on your hard drive (MP3s, MPGs, AVIs, etc...) and associates them with Real Media Player. I had to go back and manually reassociate every single file the way I had it. And the only reason I downloaded RMP to begin with was to play a Real Media file. It's useless for anything else.:frus:

Why can't all media players be like WinAmp; simple, to the point, small and useful. Nowadays they all want to play every media type they can and they wind up doing nothing very well.:rolleyes:

Jason B
07-04-2002, 10:16 PM
Friggin' every program should be small, do its job, and nothing else. Very few are that way any more. Ad-aware is the only on that I've seen in a while, other than Winamp. I don't understand why RMP does that, but it ****es you off. You can uncheck every freakin' box, and yet it still pulls that crap on you. :mad: </rant> Sorry, but computers are getting frustrating. I'm wondering if I should even bother putting XP on my box, or if i should set up a triple-boot. :rolleyes:

JediTricks
07-05-2002, 11:01 PM
And this is why I still have Win95 on my system. :D

Jason B
07-06-2002, 09:49 AM
Wow. I hope you're kidding.

Lord Malakite
07-06-2002, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by JediTricks
And this is why I still have Win95 on my system. :D

You aren't the only one! :D

Forhekset
07-07-2002, 01:40 PM
And I still use Win98 on all of my PCs. Jason B, I really don't think you want to install XP, that is unless you like the idea of installing software that checks with a MS server to make sure you aren't being naughty and trying to install the OS on more than one machine. Oh yeah, and don't forget that if you upgrade your PC, XP might think it's a different computer afterwards and freak out because then you'd be violating the software license. XP may be a heck of a lot more stable than any of Microsoft's past operating systems (well, 3.1 was pretty good), but the invasive nature of the software simply repulses me. So no thanks to XP. 98 works just fine.

Whoops, went on a little tirade there. :D

Jason B
07-07-2002, 01:58 PM
Don't worry, I have it all figured out. ;) Let's just say that this isn't the version you buy in stores. ;)
I did upgrade, and it's working nicely, except for the fact that it doesn't like my modem. :(

Admiral LSD
07-07-2002, 02:07 PM
This came up at Netwerkin (http://www.netwerkin.com) (a subtle p1mp there hehe...) a week or so ago and I'll say the same thing here as I said there (hell, I'll even quote it word for word):


Originally posted by Lysergic Acid Diethylimide:
This is the only part I have a problem with:

and use other software on your computer

The rest of it merely states that in order to keep up with all this User Rights Management crap that's going on M$ will automatically update WMP. I can live with that however this line can be taken two ways: One, it's simply M$ covering their *** in case a patch has less than the desired effect or Two, they'll actually start targeting rogue applications on the client machine. I find the latter, even for M$, to be a remote possibility.

edit: Grr... vB clobbered my second quote...

JediTricks
07-07-2002, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by Jason B
Wow. I hope you're kidding. Not at all. I've been waiting for my big step up to the next computer but even then, gonna go with 98. Heck, if there were a few more decent apps written for it, I'd be going to Linux - I'm THAT sick of Micro$oft's continued abuses of my computing day.

As for why I'm still on '95, it's because when I got this computer, '98 was the only other choice and it is FULL of security holes and weird "idiosyncrasies" compared to '95. Unfortunately, a lot of newer software I wanna work with is not compatible with '95, but ME and XP are even WORSE than '98 in my experiences, so it'll be '98 for me.

Jason B
07-07-2002, 06:34 PM
ME, heck, even 98 I would agree with, but not XP.

DarthBrandon
07-07-2002, 06:43 PM
Never mind putting stuff in without asking, they also have hidden files of your old e-mail, temp internet files, cache, cookies, and lots of other stuff they could use against you if need be. Not that I have anything to worry about, but this is also wrong in my eyes, as well as being able to hack your computer whenever they want to. I use a program called spider that eliminates all this at the touch of a button and let me tell you it works. As for my opinion on microsoft, I think they are about as evil as you can get, and I don't see anyone shutting them down anytime soon.

Admiral LSD
07-09-2002, 03:35 AM
Originally posted by JediTricks
Not at all. I've been waiting for my big step up to the next computer but even then, gonna go with 98. Heck, if there were a few more decent apps written for it, I'd be going to Linux - I'm THAT sick of Micro$oft's continued abuses of my computing day.

As for why I'm still on '95, it's because when I got this computer, '98 was the only other choice and it is FULL of security holes and weird "idiosyncrasies" compared to '95. Unfortunately, a lot of newer software I wanna work with is not compatible with '95, but ME and XP are even WORSE than '98 in my experiences, so it'll be '98 for me.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle.asp

95 is dead. 98 is next. XP is the only version of Windows currently available with guranteed long-term support. Your only alternative is, as you mention, Linux which, again as you allude to, is not ready for the mainstream.

Forhekset
07-09-2002, 07:28 AM
Originally posted by Admiral LSD


http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle.asp

95 is dead. 98 is next. XP is the only version of Windows currently available with guranteed long-term support. Your only alternative is, as you mention, Linux which, again as you allude to, is not ready for the mainstream.

The only people who need "support" for Windows products are the type of people who blindly upgrade every time a new OS comes out. "Duh, it's NEW, so it has to be BETTER." I can't recall ever having a problem with 98 that I couldn't fix myself. So your argument about guaranteed support really doesn't apply to people like me, or JT, or probably Lord Malakite as well.

Admiral LSD
07-09-2002, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by Forhekset


The only people who need "support" for Windows products are the type of people who blindly upgrade every time a new OS comes out. "Duh, it's NEW, so it has to be BETTER." I can't recall ever having a problem with 98 that I couldn't fix myself. So your argument about guaranteed support really doesn't apply to people like me, or JT, or probably Lord Malakite as well.

"Support" in this instance isn't just limited to Tech support or product updates, it refers to everything M$ supply for Windows. Things like DirectX and Internet Explorer. M$ have already started preventing IE6 and DirectX 8.1 from installing on Windows 95, itíll only take a year before the same starts happening to Win98.

JediTricks
07-09-2002, 10:45 PM
Originally posted by Forhekset
The only people who need "support" for Windows products are the type of people who blindly upgrade every time a new OS comes out. "Duh, it's NEW, so it has to be BETTER." I can't recall ever having a problem with 98 that I couldn't fix myself. So your argument about guaranteed support really doesn't apply to people like me, or JT, or probably Lord Malakite as well. Exactly! Never ever have I once bothered to even find a shred of an inkling of interest in considering the need for M$ support. Not ever.

Adm LSD, I'm really not trying to be rude or single you out, but they say their new drivers won't work for 95 and 98? So? I haven't had the need to put a new driver into my PC in over 2 years. No more IE updates? I have IE3 and I rarely boot that dinosaur up thanks to Netscape. Microsoft thinks that just because we're on the internet, that we're junkies and they're the only dealer on the block so we have to come to them to get our fix. But I know I'm not the only one fed up with the product they're pushing, I don't need their junk anymore, I've got what I need for now because I don't want or need anymore of their corruptness in my world.

Admiral LSD
07-10-2002, 03:18 AM
I'm just waiting for the day when non-M$ developers start putting Win9x traps into their installers (I wouldn't be at all surprised if the next major version of the Microsoft Installer, the best Windows installer there is period, comes with all the necessary traps built in). Oh how I'll laugh when that happens. Why? Because for 4 years I've been putting up with the same crap under NT.

Forhekset
07-10-2002, 07:20 AM
The thing is, even if I can't install the next update of DirectX, I'm not going to go against my principles and upgrade to some crap OS just so I can have DirectX 8.1209340956. If some software or something won't run because of that, so be it. I won't be bullied into buying a product that I do not want. The only way I can tell Microsoft that I don't want XP and that I dislike their business practices of late is to vote with my wallet. So maybe I won't be able to play the latest, greatest PC games in a year or so. Oh well. Most games nowadays suck anyway and rely on eye candy in the absence of plot and gameplay to capture one's attention. And games are about the only thing I can think of that constantly need DirectX upgrades. When was the last time you installed some sort of word processor or multimedia application and it prompted you to install DirectX? As far as IE goes, I've got IE6 now on my PCs at home, but I use Netscape 6 the majority of the time. There will always be an alternative to IE, so having access to the latest version's of Microsoft's browser is really the last thing in the world I'm worried about.

Boba Fitt
07-10-2002, 07:43 AM
Well speaking from the inside as an XP Technician I see valid points here. But for those who say that XP is bad or garbage or whatever are used to the 9x kernel (95,98,Me) XP is programmed differently and built upon Win2K. If something works fine in 98 but not in XP, it's simply because they are two different systems.

I'm loyal to the company but I have seen how things really work here. Win 95 is seven years old, antiquated. We don't want to keep supporting such old technology. You don't see Dell or Gateway supportring their old 486 machines with a 33mHz CPU... Most people are happy with 98 and are hesitant to upgrade to XP, so this may keep us offering 98 support longer than anticipated.

I started working for the company on Sept. 11. Not a great day to start work, I know, and I'll always remember my first day on the job. But before then I felt the same way as most of you - MS is evil, out to get all your information, screw you in every possible way and that they deserve the 4,984,832 daily lawsuits they get. But now that I'm on the inside I see it's the exact opposite.

Lots of the time is competitors and die-hard anti-MS people that start all these rumors about MS. It's sad, but we are a free country.

Peace!

Jedi Clint
07-10-2002, 12:52 PM
I have no intention of upgrading to XP as long as it requires me to contact MS every time I install the program. It is simply a pain in the behind to do so. I change a major system component 2 - 5 times each year, and I wipe the hard disk and start over fresh more times than that. I don't know how many times they let you install under 1 license, but it would really tick me off if I called to get the damn number and was denied! I will stick with 98 SE until they remove the authentication on install B.S. I think there are many people doing the same. I agree with what Boba Fitt mentioned, they will probably offer the newest versions of necessary software components for 98 as long as the market exists.

Jason B
07-10-2002, 04:34 PM
I would've agreed with everyone here against XP not too long ago, just ask Admiral. ;)
Now that I have it installed, I will never go back to another OS. I will upgrade, if it's worth it, but I will never go back to anything older than XP Pro.
All I can say is this: If you want XP, but you don't like the BS it comes with, then go to 2000 Pro. It isn't as user-friendly, but it is based on NT as well, and is just as stable. Also, if you go to windows update, then you can get the compatability mode built into it, so you can still run programs that are "Strictly 9x."

Boba Fitt
07-11-2002, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by Jedi Clint
I have no intention of upgrading to XP as long as it requires me to contact MS every time I install the program. It is simply a pain in the behind to do so. I change a major system component 2 - 5 times each year, and I wipe the hard disk and start over fresh more times than that. I don't know how many times they let you install under 1 license, but it would really tick me off if I called to get the damn number and was denied!

Actually you don't have to contact MS everytime you install it. You have 30 days after you install it to activate it. After that 30 days you cannot log in unless you activate it. This prevents more than one computer using the same product key. (cuts down on piracy)

There are three ways to activate it: call tech support, over the internet, or your modem calling a 1-800 number. The last two take roughly 20 seconds to do. Calling can take 10 mins.

You do not have to reactivate it everytime you add one or two components (except for the motherboard and hard drive).

You can install the same copy of XP using the same product key unlimited times on the same machine. If you reforma and install weekly for example you can reinstall XP as often as needed.

XP is good... give it a chance! :-)

Jedi Clint
07-11-2002, 11:31 AM
The motherboard and hard disk are exactly what I change often. If I buy the software, why shouldn't I be allowed to put it on any machine I own? I don't think you should be allowed to share it with anyone who didn't pay for it, but if you bought it you should be able to use it as you wish.

Boba Fitt
07-11-2002, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by Jedi Clint
The motherboard and hard disk are exactly what I change often. If I buy the software, why shouldn't I be allowed to put it on any machine I own? I don't think you should be allowed to share it with anyone who didn't pay for it, but if you bought it you should be able to use it as you wish.


About the motherboard, well yeah. That's a pain in the butt. But why would you change the MB so often? :D

But if you change hard drives you have to install it again on to the new drive. If it's a new install it needs to be activated.

But I totally agree you should be able to install it on any machine you own. I'd like to do that at home myself. It's just MS would have no way of knowing how many machines you have in your home, and how many machines are in your neighbors and friends houses.

You could say you have 3 computers, actually have 2, but loan the disk to your friend.

Oh well... It's still a great OS

Jedi Clint
07-11-2002, 12:18 PM
Boba Fitt, I don't doubt that XP is an improvement over Win 9x.

I build systems for people, and service existing systems. This also means that I end up changing my own system on a regular basis so that I can keep current, and sometimes just because I feel like it :p. Microsoft had a major proponent in me for their operating systems until this business with XP came out. They had no trouble making money hand over fist without authentication on installation before, so I have no pity for them about losing money due to piracy. I'm glad we can agree that we should be allowed to install the software on any machine we own. Maybe MS will catch wind of this heavy-handed impediment to system builders' ease of use, and change their ways. If not........Linux (or another OS) will rival MS's current OS eventually! :evil: