XP License

[104456]

For clarification, Maxx, a solid majority of installs that lack SP2 are pirated versions. .

Just to add further.The addidtion of SP2 to a system still does not clarify if its a valid install or not SP2 merely checks a known list of neferious key codes and files.And no I for one do not assume anything by the level of patching applied to a system SP2 does cause problems on some systems and some manufacturers even have to publish patches or bios updates to accomodate the service pack.

[snooker]

OK...sorry to jump the gun there. My apologies....

Its cool , Though looking back to my first post ? It was my typo when I said he , it was meant to be " you "

One thing you can check on your comp , If you go to the control panel and double click " system " below the part of the registered , Look at those numbers and see if you see OEM writen with them ?

[maxximilian]

For clarification, Maxx, a solid majority of installs that lack SP2 are pirated versions.

Without necessarily disputing your statement....I would be curious about how that statistic is developed. Unless someone actually found a way to poll all the XP SP1 users....it would appear to rely on the premise: 'People that don't upgrade regularly must be hiding something'.

In short....it still boils down to make an assumption...just on a larger scale.

I am never on the upgrade cutting edge. I am always at least one browser upgrade back for example. I never take an upgrade until I need to take one. In this case....I ran SP1 for at least a year beyond when a "stable" SP2 came available. Just didn't need it until I bought an Adobe video editor that insisted I needed SP2. There must be a decent ammount of people like me with the philosophy....if it aint broke, don't fix it.

Not everyone that goes into a sporting goods store and buys a ski mask is a robber is all I am saying. If a tech forum staffer is going to conclude that someone is a pirate....they need more than just a lack of SP2 to accuse someone of being a pirate. I haven't seen it here....but it obviously does happen elsewhere.

The next machine I build will have a new hardware environment that may be more SP2 happy....so I may take it for that. Until then....I plan to stay put at SP1.

[SuperSparks]

I've never understood the folks at other forums who are accusing people of running pirated software at the slightest pretext. The people that really are running pirated software nearly always give the game away in my experience, there is no need to accuse everybody beforehand

Maxx, you really ought to install SP2, if only for the added security. SP2 really does address a lot of issues, security wise.

[maxximilian]

I won't install SP2 on this machine.....especially since it is on borrowed time now. It will not only be donating an operating system....but some parts as well to the new rig. I may put SP2 on that new one....but will also likely get it on the disc and mailed to me. I think MS still has that option available....

I agree....jumping in a thread to to yell "pirate" is almost a sport at some forums. I run a tech forum and have been modding at them for awhile....and to be honest, I don't even look for pirates. I just don't feel that's my job. I leave it to MS to deal with. Naturally...once it becomes clear...I kill the thread to protect against any legal ramifications for my forum. I try to provide technical help and a community...not police services.

[lgbpop]

Without necessarily disputing your statement....I would be curious about how that statistic is developed. Unless someone actually found a way to poll all the XP SP1 users....it would appear to rely on the premise: 'People that don't upgrade regularly must be hiding something'.

It appears to rely on fact. No premises, Maxx. The sun rises in the east every morning. That doesn't rely on any premise, either; it's just plain fact. All of the excuses and rationalizations one can use for not wanting to believe it do not make it unfactual. So far, in my short time as a moderator here every time I've suggested to someone they need to install SP2 for the security features (rudimentary as they are) those who don't have it have all admitted that they aren't running legit installs. When there are as many people asking for help as there are sometimes, it becomes aggravating to spend a week on a thread only to find out the OP is in violation of the AUP and that the time could have been spent with other deserving OPs. The mods do have to enforce the AUP; we can't ignore the parts we don't like. We don't police anything that I know of, either; as Nick says, the occasional miscreant gives himself away.

[maxximilian]

Sorry lgbpop.....but the evidence you call factual...I would refer to as anecdotal at best. I'm not saying you can't have suspicions...everyone is entitled, but acting on those suspicions requires more than just being behind on an upgrade. To be perfectly honest....I consider it a personal insult if someone accuses me of pirating windows simply because I don't want SP2.

All I am saying is that if you base a conclusion of piracy on that one single bit of information alone....you are wrong.

To use the sporting goods analogy again....

If you were working in a sporting goods store and I came in to buy a ski mask and a gun....you might well be suspicious. But would you tell me..."Sorry, I won't sell you those items because I think you are a crook"?

Suspicions don't require any evidence....but accusations do, is my point.

[Crimson Blonde]

all I can say is I have a fully licensed copy of XP and I WILL NOT use sp2 and of story .... it completely frogged up my machine.

my resources went sky high .. I kept freezing ... and continual pop ups about security risks that couldn't be stopped.

I unistalled it and all went back to normal

[maxximilian]

Exactly CB....there are legitimate reasons for not using SP2.....

As I mentioned earlier in this thread....I get attached to some older programs. I like them and they run better on SP1 than they do on SP2....and that's a fact.

I will also note...and this is admittedly anecdotal for me....my surfing goes faster with SP1. Seems to be less clutter going on and pages load faster....

[lgbpop]

the evidence you call factual...I would refer to as anecdotal at best.

Maxx, I was born in the morning but it wasn't this morning. When someone admits that their install is not legit, they are admitting their install is not legit. That's not anecdotal, that's fact. Just because you were't there to see it doesn't mean it's untrue. You can call it anything you want, and you can refuse to believe it, but it's fact. I don't do anecdotes, and I don't do premises. I'm a blunt, logical New Englander (refugee) who doesn't deal in BS. From anyone. Especially anecdotal BS. If you want to consider that a rebuke, you may, and that's not anecdotal either.

[Crimson Blonde]

Well if they admit to not having a legit copy that's one thing .. but there are those of us that do have legit copies and don't run SP2 ... some forums won't even assist you and make snide comments if you don't run it ... and that ... is not right. There are 2 sides to every coin. And there can be legitimate reasons for not running SP2 other than having a pirated copy of XP.

[maxximilian]

What I am calling "anecdotal" evidence is not any person or persons using SP1 that admit to you they are pirates....it's the overall conclusion you draw that is suspect.

C'mon now...you know what I meant....

The definition of Anecdotal:

Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis:

That fits precisely what you are describing you do. You have not done any analysis of the SP1 piracy issue...you are just relaying your experience with the posters here. BTW...You now have two people running legal versions right here in this thread alone that refuse to upgrade. That already wrecks your conclusion that SP1 is an indicator of piracy as a stand-alone fact.

[Tuttle]

I'm not sure you can consider SP1 a lesser evil any more though -- new Windows XP security updates require SP2.