Microsoft Security essentials Review
in [Freeware]
|
Prev: Why Google keeps your data forever, tracks you with ads
Next: Changing image numbers on digital camera
From: za kAT on 8 May 2010 12:25 On Sat, 8 May 2010 15:35:15 +0000 (UTC), Bear Bottoms wrote: >>> It is pure >>> freeware >> >> Can I run it without an OS licence for Windows? >> > > Stupid question. It is designed only for Windows. Is it pure as in virgin, or pure as in you say so? -- zakAT(a)pooh.the.cat - www.zakATsKopterChat.com
From: Mike Easter on 8 May 2010 13:25 Bear Bottoms wrote: > za kAT >> Can I run it without an OS licence for Windows? >> > > Stupid question. It is designed only for Windows. It didn't seem like a stupid question to /me/. The question was about a MS OS *LICENSE* -- plenty of people run MS OSes without a MS license. What happens if an unlicensed version of a Win OS is running MSE and MSE phones home to MS? -- Mike Easter
From: za kAT on 8 May 2010 14:07 On Sat, 8 May 2010 17:43:22 +0000 (UTC), Bear Bottoms wrote: > Mike Easter <MikeE(a)ster.invalid> wrote in > news:84ll4eFrc3U1(a)mid.individual.net: > >> Bear Bottoms wrote: >>> za kAT >> >>>> Can I run it without an OS licence for Windows? >>>> >>> >>> Stupid question. It is designed only for Windows. >> >> It didn't seem like a stupid question to /me/. >> >> The question was about a MS OS *LICENSE* -- plenty of people run MS >> OSes without a MS license. >> >> What happens if an unlicensed version of a Win OS is running MSE and >> MSE phones home to MS? >> >> > > Plenty of people are breaking laws...when you go illegal, there are > doors closed. > > I don't think you will be able to install MSE if your OS doesn't > validate. Quite right too. They are not a charity. I'm questioning your nonsense about purity. It seems to me that it is grossly unfair of you to tar the brush of Avira, Avast, and AVG, for various reasons including being 'false positiveware', and who are after all businesses, in favour of Microsoft who are as we have discussed before getting paid by us for this 'freeware'. It's disingenuous, and dishonest. -- zakAT(a)pooh.the.cat - www.zakATsKopterChat.com
From: Craig on 8 May 2010 14:51 On 05/08/2010 10:25 AM, Mike Easter wrote: > Bear Bottoms wrote: >> za kAT > >>> Can I run it without an OS licence for Windows? >> >> Stupid question. It is designed only for Windows. > > It didn't seem like a stupid question to /me/. > > The question was about a MS OS *LICENSE* -- plenty of people run MS > OSes without a MS license. > > What happens if an unlicensed version of a Win OS is running MSE and > MSE phones home to MS? I don't know what MS is doing about this now but, I remember years ago they were toying with a policy of cutting off *all* non-licensed instances of Windows from *all* updates (i.e. security updates & patches). Eventually it was pointed out to them that millions of infested, pirated installs were worse for the ecosystem than millions of clean & pirated installs. Here's an example of what I'm talking about: > Users of pirated copies of Windows take heed: you should stay current > on all Microsoft security patches just like everybody else. > > Microsoft has long had a policy of giving Windows pirates a free pass > to download security patches. Yet many of the tens of millions of > Windows pirates worldwide may not be aware of this policy, nor trust > that Microsoft won't try to somehow penalize them, says Chester > Wisniewski, security analyst at Sophos. <http://content.usatoday.com/communities/technologylive/post/2010/02/windows-pirates-encouraged-to-install-security-updates/1> I'm guessing this is when they started thinking about implementing their license-activation-based remote shutdown "feature." Coupled with their Windows Activation Technologies (WAT) Update (KB971033), it looks like they're hoping to put the slow squeeze on pirates. Whereas a WAT crack used to last a distribution's lifecycle, now it's down to 90 days... Of course, this'll mean fewer unlicensed instances will stay current & patched, pushing the infection rates up again. I wonder if there's a better way for MS. -- -Craig
From: Gordon Darling on 8 May 2010 14:59
On Sat, 08 May 2010 11:51:23 -0700, Craig wrote: > Of course, this'll mean fewer unlicensed instances will stay current & > patched, pushing the infection rates up again. I wonder if there's a > better way for MS. FLOSS? Regards Gordon -- ox·y·mo·ron n. pl. ox·y·mo·ra or ox·y·mo·rons A rhetorical figure in which incongruous or contradictory terms are combined, as in Microsoft Security, Microsoft Help and Microsoft Works. |