ie8 fix
madison

Hardware 2.0

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

It's time for Microsoft to supply ALL patches to All users

By | April 2, 2009, 4:45am PDT

Summary: It’s time for Microsoft’s policy of tying the availability of Windows Updates to Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) validation to end.

It’s time for Microsoft’s policy of tying the availability of Windows Updates to Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) validation to end.

Brian Livingston writing for Windows Secrets had the following to say:

“It’s ridiculous to say that Microsoft provides all security updates to Windows users, whether or not they pass Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) validation. No, Microsoft doesn’t.

“First of all, a system that fails WGA is restricted in using Microsoft’s update and download sites.

“WGA has a reputation for rating some PCs as unlicensed when in fact they’re completely legitimate. For this reason, many people exit Windows Update at this point and turn off Automatic Updates (if it was enabled) rather than risk disabling their expensive computers.”

Windows Update and WGA are interlinked. If you have a PC that doesn’t validate as running a genuine copy of Windows (or you are uneasy about putting it through the validation process for whatever reason), then you are limited to receiving only those updates that are labeled as “Critical”. While this still gives users access to the most important updates, it means that users miss out on updates classified as “Important” or “Moderate”.

To make matters worse, back in 2006 someone at Microsoft decided to push an update for the WGA mechanism (KB905474) through the Windows Update mechanism and marked it as a “Critical” update. This mixing of genuine security updates and marketing propaganda was an enormous abuse of trust on Microsoft’s part (Apple later pulled a similar stunt when it pushed Safari to Windows users though its software update mechanism) and shouldn’t have been allowed to happen.

It’s now time for Microsoft to disconnect WGA from all Windows related updates. Same goes from Office Genuine Advantage and updates for Microsoft Office. The current situation doesn’t make good sense. I don’t have a problem with Microsoft demanding that users wanting additional content (games, new apps, templates and so on) have to go through a validation process, but ALL updates should be available to ALL users, irrespective of whether users are running a genuine copy of Windows or not. Users who have unwittingly been sold a counterfeit copy of Windows shouldn’t be penalized and have their security compromised. In fact, when it comes to security updates, even those who know they are running a pirated copy of Windows should get access to all updates. It’s in everyone’s best interests that as many machines as possible are patched.

Thoughts?

[UPDATE: This is from a Microsoft spokesperson:

1. We offer all security updates, service packs, and other critical reliability updates on Windows XP and Windows Vista even if the machine is non-genuine (these are ‘Important’ and ‘High Priority’ Updates).
2. Other individual recommended or optional updates may or may not be blocked on Windows Vista, at our discretion (i.e., not ALL ‘Recommended’ and ‘Optional’ updates are only delivered to Genuine systems).
3. All Optional Updates on Windows XP are disallowed since the WU and MU sites prevent access from non-genuine machines, and ‘Optional’ Updates can’t be found through Automatic Updates on the local computer.

While I accept that this is true, the problem is that updates are still hidden behind a WGA wall. For example, take the following from Microsoft's own description of WGA:

Upon your first visit to the Microsoft Download Center, Windows Update, or Microsoft Update sites, you receive a message requiring you to validate your copy of Windows.

Another example is from Microsoft's download page for Windows Defender:

There are significant risks to running non-genuine Windows. Only genuine Windows customers can receive product downloads, Windows updates and special offers. Windows Defender will validate that your copy of Windows is genuine before installation. Furthermore, Windows Defender will only remove Severe threats for machines that are not genuine. Low, Medium and High threats will be detected, but not removed unless your copy of Windows is genuine.

These are just two examples of the WGA wall that Microsoft puts between users and updates.]

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology.

Disclosure

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

All opinions expressed on Hardware 2.0 are those of Adrian Kingsley-Hughes. Every effort is made to ensure that the information posted is accurate. If you have any comments, queries or corrections, please contact Adrian via the email link here. Any possible conflicts of interest will be posted below. [Updated: February 23, 2010] - Adrian Kingsley-Hughes has no business relationships, affiliations, investments, or other actual/potential conflicts of interest relating to the content posted so far on this blog.

Biography

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology -- whether that be by learning to program, building a PC from a pile of parts, or helping them get the most from their new MP3 player or digital camera.

Adrian has authored/co-authored technical books on a variety of topics, ranging from programming to building and maintaining PCs. His most recent books include "Build the Ultimate Custom PC", "Beginning Programming" and "The PC Doctor's Fix It Yourself Guide". He has also written training manuals that have been used by a number of Fortune 500 companies.

Adrian also runs a popular blog under the name The PC Doctor, where he covers a range of computer-related topics -- from security to repairing and upgrading.

446
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

So that's why people have a low opinion of Zdnet..
Chrissd 13th May 2009
What?! So.. If I'm running an illegal copy of Windows or don't want to update it because the CIA is listening, then I should revieve full support the same as a customer that has paid for it?

Then what is the point of paying for Windows in the first place?
Updates are like a warranty. If it is faulty or can be misused in someway, it will be fixed by the manufacturer. If you don't buy the OS, you don't get the warranty.

Yes, critical patches should go through because there is too much security risk of the machine becoming a bot. But apart from that.. Although even that is fairly generous. If a copy if Windows isn't validated, it shouldn't be allowed access to anything. Not a black desktop background with a popup. Complete lockdown. If you steal it, you are not entitled to anything.

And I'm not a MS fanboy. I do prefer their OS to others, but that's after using all others. And how I like gaming. But Microsoft doesn't have to let people have anything. Just look at the music industry copyright. Person downloads a song and they're looking to get sued into lifetime bankruptcy.
0 Votes
+ -
And everyone
LandonAB 2nd Apr 2009
with a stolen car, that has faulty brakes, should take it to the Dealer and get the brakes repaired under warranty. Because, that's what is best for society, regardless of whether or not they STOLE it.
0 Votes
+ -
re: And everyone ... would be better off ...
n0neXn0ne Updated - 2nd Apr 2009
"...car, that has faulty brakes, should take it to the Dealer ...
...that's what is best for society,... , that would decrease fatalities.
...
"...regardless of whether or not they STOLE it ." Theft is a law enforcement issue.


^o^

0 Votes
+ -
Bad analogy
mikefarinha 2nd Apr 2009
This isn't a very good analogy.

First off a stolen vehicle is most likely NOT stolen from the manufacture but rather an individual. With Windows robbers don't break into a persons house steal their copy of Windows and wipe the victims HDD.

Secondly, once a patch is created the cost is sunk. People don't bring their computers to Microsoft to have a certified technician patch the system.

Having said that I think it would be in Microsoft's best interest, PR wise, to continue to allow critical patches, and only critical patches to unvalidated systems. If someone has a legal copy of Windows and is getting WGA errors, as rare as it is, it doesn't take much effort to contact Microsoft for a remedy.

I'm sure Microsoft knows this from experience but it is really bad PR when a vast number of Microsoft OSes become compromised and a lot of media attention is drawn to it.

This latest Conficker ruckus is a good example of how well Microsoft has been at containing large threats. The Conficker threat has amounted to nothing more than a hill of beans.
0 Votes
+ -
re: ....
n0neXn0ne Updated - 2nd Apr 2009
"The Conficker threat has amounted to nothing more than a hill of beans."

Because it was version "c" it's still in beta like Win 7.
Let's see what will happen with version "Z"

Hence there is still a 250K bounty for the creators head

^o^

0 Votes
+ -
Bounty
Erroneous 2nd Apr 2009
Not the first case when there was a reward offered for information leading to the arrest of a virus writer. It is common practice.
0 Votes
+ -
Don't be so selective when quoting me
mikefarinha 2nd Apr 2009
I said:

This latest Conficker ruckus is a good example of how well Microsoft has been at containing large threats. The Conficker threat has amounted to nothing more than a hill of beans.

No doubt that conficker was a nasty worm. Security is a cat-and-mouse game; it always will be. Had Microsoft been lax with their patches conficker could have been quite devastating. The fact of the matter is that Microsoft had the patch for the vulnerability on their servers before the worm was widespread. Users that keep their systems patched were rewarded with a conficker free system.

It was because of Microsoft's efforts the 'scare' was much ado about nothing.
0 Votes
+ -
...
Badgered 3rd Apr 2009
Don't be so selective when quoting me

In case you haven't noticed... that's the only way he/she posts anything.

Take one snippet of text, change what he wants and throw in a "^o^".
0 Votes
+ -
Conficker
/A\V/ 3rd Apr 2009
I could be completely off base here, but i'm pretty sure that Microsoft had nothing to do with containing the Conficker worm. I recall reading a post on ZD describing how the April 1st date was only
a) the day when conficker upped it's ante from a small number of domains to a large one,
- and -
b) largely ineffective thanks to security researchers, not Microsoft and their patching.

In fact, there are many articles available that verify that the primary reason that the Conficker worm didn't do much was due to blocking of the sites it was trying to contact, not patches in the OS.

Here's an excerpt from one for you: "Security companies monitoring the worm have been largely successful at blocking infected machines from communicating with whoever programmed it." - http://www.wgal.com/news/19054410/detail.html

Notice that these articles never mention that the reason that the worm didn't do much is because the "previously infected computers were patched properly." No, it's quite clear that Microsoft is not responsible directly for containing this threat.

Personally, i doubt we've seen the last of Conficker. April 1st sounds like it was supposed to be a feint, and that the real activation will be coming along later. But that's just me.
0 Votes
+ -
Yeah, you're completely off base.
mikefarinha 3rd Apr 2009
Microsoft is taking the Conficker worm pretty seriously. They have, for the first time, coordinated a group of industry representatives from security companies, consulting firms, and registrars to actively combat the outbreak. Microsoft is not limiting itself to technical solutions; they are offering a $250,000 reward for information that leads to the arrest of the worm?s authors.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=2572

However my initial comment was about the patch that fixed the vunerability that Conficker exploited. Microsoft released the patch immediately due to the severity of the vunerability. The only computers to get infected were those not keept properly patched.
0 Votes
+ -
Well
/A\V/ Updated - 3rd Apr 2009
Then i stand corrected.

The point of my statement remains valid, however - Microsoft's patching is not the reason that this has been contained and that Conficker is probably not done.

Not to mention that, taken from the same article that you posted, Microsoft's alliance - the researchers from the OTHER security firms that are researching the worm - has about one major trick up their sleeve - registering thousands of domain names as soon as they realize that Conficker is trying to talk to said domain.

This is NOT a solution, it's a desperation tactic. It shows clearly that they are desperate for a fix, and are scrambling to try to stay afloat. All it'll take is a quick twist in the worm's communication method, and bam, it's over.
0 Votes
+ -
@deviros are you dense
rbslack@... 4th Apr 2009
The fact still remains that it was Microsofts original patch that vastly reduced the number of infected machines from what it might have been. I can see that aparently you are a MS hater but even you should have enough sense to see that it was MS's efforts which originally reduced the severity of the threat overall.
0 Votes
+ -
Back to patching
tech869 3rd Apr 2009
As far as Conficker is concerned I have to agree with everything you've said. But what you said is also a good base for the arguement that Micro$oft should release their patching a bit more than is currently done.

Botnets, viruses and spyware are threats to everyone using the Internet, regardless of OS or the legitimacy of the copy of that OS. Any patch for any bug that fixes a vulnerability should be released to every computer running that OS, if only to protect the legitimate users from being affected by the illegitimate.

That said, any patch that adds functionality or fixes a bug that is not a security flaw they have every right to hold behind their WGA wall. They just need to have free support available to fix WGA bugs and errors. Because they have the right to protect their intellectual property does not give them the right to leave any of us who use their software legally and honorably hung out to dry. Now or after they consider the software to have reached EOL.
0 Votes
+ -
easy fix
rbslack@... 4th Apr 2009
there is an easy way to fix the wga errors do occur an MS has things setup so its quite simple to get these errors corrected it just requires a minimal effort on your part in leting them know of the problem. So, dont be lazy just pick up the phone and call MS....DOH.
0 Votes
+ -
you are not comletely correct
rbslack@... 4th Apr 2009
While the security firms did help to reduce the spread it is still due the patches from MS that far fewer machines where originally infected. Give credit where credit is due, in this instance MS did an excelent job.
Now, unfortunately i have to agree with you that we haven't heard the last from the conflicker worm, but I hope that MS and the security firms will continue to do such a good job.
Bravo to both MS and the various security firms involved.
... conficker wasn't supposed to do anything, there is no real malicious payload, just the potential to retrieve it. Conficker was a big hole in the wall, not an actual bank robbery. And the solution did come from outside of Microsoft.
Didn't 60 minutes claim it was some kid hacker in Russia named Tempest?
I know that the "a" version checked for a Ukrainian keyboard and aborted if it found it, and the "b" variant checked for a Ukrainian language pack. Not sure if the "c" variant did any sort of language check.
0 Votes
+ -
IT should be 500K
rbslack@... 4th Apr 2009
Any idiot that sits around witing any program designed to hurt someone else be it end user or corporation has no life so they try to mess up everyone elses. I feel that he/she should be strung up and tortured to give him/her abetter perspective.
0 Votes
+ -
Say What?
wcallahan@... 3rd Apr 2009
You said "First off a stolen vehicle is most likely NOT stolen from the manufacture but rather an individual."
Are you saying it's okay to steal from a manufacturer?
Care to explain why it's okay to steal from a company and not an individual?
0 Votes
+ -
....
n0neXn0ne Updated - 3rd Apr 2009
"Care to explain why it's okay to steal from a company and not an individual?"

also see


^o^

0 Votes
+ -
Car vs. Software is lousy analogy
tech869 3rd Apr 2009
This analogy stinks from start to finish. The two are so completely different as to make any point worthless and debatable.
0 Votes
+ -
but few people bother thinking ahead to the fact that these costs get passed right on to us as consumers.
0 Votes
+ -
Rare incident to you maybe...
JCitizen 3rd Apr 2009
But false invalidation has happened to me three times with legitimate software.

All it did was start me on the rode to pushing Linux on my customers.

I did make sure that Microsoft remoted in and fixed the issue on two of the units; as Redmond must be made to pay for their mistakes.

However on the third one, the original disc was stolen from my client. Leaving him with an unusable PC!! He gave up and didn't even try to contact MS, and borrowed another unit from a family member.

IN my perspective WGA fail quite a lot!
0 Votes
+ -
I do not claim to be an expert on this, but:

That would be the first I have actually heard of a legitimate copy of Windows being denied access to updates. Did you research the CAUSE of this issue considering that you have obviously been moved out of the "average" incident category? What is your source for the copies that failed? It does not sound like a random event to me, but that would just be standard troubleshooting tactics on my part.

I have sold and activated / updated hundreds of copies of Windows with no problems. I doubt if this is happening to you for no reason.
0 Votes
+ -
There's another shop where I am from who had the same problems until the owner started buying his software from a reputable source, at which point all the problems went away.
0 Votes
+ -
Microsoft parter, and a well know discount house; and I also physically validated the disc; MS provides all the trouble shooting steps at their web-site.

The fact is the installations WERE valid and WGA is simply a POS!!

The technicians would not admit exactly what was wrong; I suspect they didn't want the true cause getting out. I suspect they were analyzing the file structure and looking at whether the product key was valid; but I think they went farther than that to actually get the installation to validate without a complete re-installation.

That kind of information isn't going to be shared with just anyone, otherwise the crackers would be doing it. And they probably are anyway!
If they had been more careful with their software the issue would not have occured. ARe you sure you didnt install the pirated software they had the problem with.
0 Votes
+ -
Absolutely...
JCitizen 5th Apr 2009
I even gave MS the name, address, and phone number of the Microsoft Certified partners that sold the installation discs to me.

They weren't all the same version of Windows, and they weren't all from the same vendor, but all were valid retail sources.

Those vendors are still in business and no distress has been reported from them in these incidents.

You would have to blame something on me, but the Microsoft techs said they wouldn't discuss the issue; it was well enough that the installations were valid from then on. With the exception of the stolen disc; in which case, it is understandable why it wouldn't validate at that time. It was probably in use by the crook.

However we had WGA trouble with that installation when it was first put on the machine. I hope the crook has the same problem, it would serve him right.
I agree that thieves should be invited to get faulty brakes fixed on the cars they stole. And then when they can't prove they own the vehicle, they should be arrested (or at least questioned and given the opportunity to make the situation right).
0 Votes
+ -
I think you missed the point
20kwfence 3rd Apr 2009
It's not of as much interest for the car company to figure out if the car was stolen because it wasn't stolen from them. Now if you took the car back to the individual you stole it from and said fix the brakes.... Might be more like the situation with MS.
By the way 2 of my 4 home systems failed WGA. All legitimate oem versions. Microsoft fixed them both but it was still a hassle.
0 Votes
+ -
Quit whining
rbslack@... 4th Apr 2009
they fixed the problem thats called good customer service. no matter what software ofr hardware you buy ther will always be a few instances of problems. It seems to me that MS did an admirable job in getting your problems resolved and you should be thanking them not belittling them. In 99.9% of the cases WGA errors are due to pirated or incorrectly installed versions of vista or xp if I where you I'de be upset with who I purchased the software from since the manufacturer has clearly done their job and then some.
0 Votes
+ -
analogy still doesn work
tech869 3rd Apr 2009
The analogy still doesn't work, but your ending is the right one. It would also be the right one for the pirated software, but getting to that ending would be very different.
0 Votes
+ -
WTG GMAN
rbslack@... 4th Apr 2009
excellent point!
0 Votes
+ -
a better analogy
toddemiles 3rd Apr 2009
A better analogy would be this. There are legit cars out there that a auto maker produces. These cars they have a responsibility to fix/repair if recalls are done. Then along comes a person that produces in their garage a copy of the car that the automaker made. Then he tries taking it to the garage for them to fix/repair and it is not covered since it was never purchased from the automaker making the repairs.

MS has no obligation to patch software that was not purchased from them.
0 Votes
+ -
Computer viruses are designed like biological viruses to infect and reproduce. You can get a virus by contacting someone who has the disease and not showing symptoms.

It does not matter if the other person got the disease associating with the underclass, it still effects everyone. This is 2 problems, one is piracy and the other is unsecured computers. Which is worse?
0 Votes
+ -
neither
rbslack@... 4th Apr 2009
neither case should be tollerated and both need to be stamped out.
0 Votes
+ -
Re: And everyone
NPGMBR 2nd Apr 2009
Total ********. Ya know I'm all for helping out others but im really getting sick of people that think those that can should pay to support those that want to buy what they can't afford.

I purchase software, music, movies, books etc because I want to do that right thing by supporting the people or businesses that provide services to me. People that steal make these things more expensive for me. So, why in the hell should I continue to buy when people that just take what the hell they want and get the same benefits?

The author really should explain to those of us that buy the stuff we want why we should continue to do so when we can get these products and services for free.
0 Votes
+ -
Good question. Here is a fantastic answer
Cayble Updated - 2nd Apr 2009
Because unpatched systems affect the world wide network. And not in a good way. The rather silly analogy above in one respect actually goes to prove we need all systems patched completely because if it was situation with stolen cars the way it is with invalid Windows systems then there would be thousands and thousands of stolen cars on the road for years and years with no real chance of the thieves ever being arrested and no chance of the vehicles ever being properly maintained.

If you think thats a bad situation for people who are driving on the road for any reason then you are right, and having countless thousands of unpatched computers hooked up to the web for years and years is a bad idea as well.
0 Votes
+ -
Did you read the whole Story?
getinrdone 3rd Apr 2009
They quote Microsoft saying that they provide critical and security patches to everyone. go to the Microsoft site and download a service pack, you will not have to pass WGA to download it nor do you have to for windows updates. The issue here is whether people should have access to other non security related content such as add ons.
0 Votes
+ -
technically they do
rbslack@... 4th Apr 2009
they just have to goto microsoft downloads but most are tooo lazy.
0 Votes
+ -
All the more reason
rparker009 3rd Apr 2009
Ok, this would fix that problem. when a illegal copy of windows is detected. the network stack gets removed. That why until it is made legal they can not get to the net at all.
0 Votes
+ -
To extreme
tech869 3rd Apr 2009
and if a legitimate copy is detected as illegal, what then?
0 Votes
+ -
pick up the phone...DUHN
rbslack@... 4th Apr 2009
call MS and get it corrected. How lazy can you be that when such a simple solution exists you refuse to see it just because you are too lazy to pickup a phone?
0 Votes
+ -
nothing to do with being lazy
jafucci@... 4th Apr 2009
How about having to do this 20 (or more) times? I have a client that uses virtualization, and has many VMs running. When certain areas of the virtualization software are updated, it looks like new/different hardware, and the next time a VM is turned on, and it goes through its check, you get the message that Windows needs to be validated again. Immediately. No grace period. And you try to validate over the Internet, but you get the message that this copy of Windows has already been validated, and you need to call Microsoft. And you call, and enter in all the numbers, and wait, and it doesn't work automatically, so you need to talk to a person. And you get a live person, and give them all the numbers again, they give you more numbers to enter, and you finally have a validated copy of Windows. Now do this 20 times. Or better yet, call Microsoft and tell them you have 20 machines that need to be validated. See how many times you get transferred for that request, until you can finally convince someone that all 20 copies are genuine (you have all the COAs). You still have to enter in all the numbers on each machine to get them all validated. And make sure you keep all your numbers straight, because each number is unique to each PC (VM). Now imagine you are a large corporation and have thousands of VMs. You want to be the one that makes that phone call to Microsoft?

Fortunately, the VM software has improved its technology so that this scenario can probably be avoided, but it is an option that will cost, and I am not sure that it totally solves the problem.

So, not as simple as you believe.
0 Votes
+ -
interesting notion
rbslack@... 4th Apr 2009
maybe it will get some of the more lazy poeple who got scammed into buying pirated software to actually pick up the phone MS will generally enable to make your pirated copy legit, they don't penalise those who got scammed but it helps them to find the sources of the pirated software. If they could stamp these out the price we pay for sofware could be reduced.
0 Votes
+ -
MS Should Install a Kill Switch
wcallahan@... 3rd Apr 2009
Let Microsoft install a "Kill Switch".
If someone has a pirated version of Windows, Microsoft should have every right to Zap it out of existance.
0 Votes
+ -
Useless
hasta la Vista, bah-bie 3rd Apr 2009
Somebody will find a way to hack that.

Nice try, though... LOL... grin
0 Votes
+ -
There in lies the problem; WGA isn't reliable enough to do that to a customer. It would garner the biggest class action lawsuit in history.

AS I have posted earier, I've been hit in one way or another by false negatives on WGA, and Microsoft spent hours and hours fixing the problem. It is a wonder they can make an money at all with the manpower it has taken to fix issues of false negatives for legitimate customers.
0 Votes
+ -
The problem with that is...
Zorched 3rd Apr 2009
...that Microsoft's whole method for determining an authentic copy is flawed. The pirate isn't going to admit it's pirated. He's going to say that Microsoft's system screwed up. The regular guy that IS genuine who has a problem where the validation process fails for some erroneous reason is going to say the same thing.

One is right the other is lying. Microsoft has no real method to tell the difference. So, if they kill both systems, you get one totally ticked off genuine person and one foiled criminal.

From a business and a PR standpoint, it's better for them to let the criminal walk than endure another ZDNet and other tech-site related flame-roasting like the ones they have historically when they HAVE tried to implement kill switches.
0 Votes
+ -
and Microsoft should be liable
cjcoats 3rd Apr 2009
If so, then if Microsoft ever activates that kill switch incorrectly, they should serve time for violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Five years per offense.

Does Microsoft want to play _that_ game?
0 Votes
+ -
whoa there....
rbslack@... 4th Apr 2009
you forget MS wont do this ever that i can see, this was just a suggestion by some noob.
0 Votes
+ -
I Disagree Because...
melekali 3rd Apr 2009
...they will zap legitimate users as well as pirated versions. No one who has paid should ever be in danger of a kill switch being activated. Aside from the fact that this can be bungled so that legitimate copies are killed, this introduces a new threat vector for malware writers to activate the kill switch. This could be used to hold a person's very OS for ransom - pay us this much and we'll turn it back on. This is truly not the answer. If MS has not come up with a good answer, obviously they are not really trying that hard.
What?! So.. If I'm running an illegal copy of Windows or don't want to update it because the CIA is listening, then I should revieve full support the same as a customer that has paid for it?

Then what is the point of paying for Windows in the first place?
Updates are like a warranty. If it is faulty or can be misused in someway, it will be fixed by the manufacturer. If you don't buy the OS, you don't get the warranty.

Yes, critical patches should go through because there is too much security risk of the machine becoming a bot. But apart from that.. Although even that is fairly generous. If a copy if Windows isn't validated, it shouldn't be allowed access to anything. Not a black desktop background with a popup. Complete lockdown. If you steal it, you are not entitled to anything.

And I'm not a MS fanboy. I do prefer their OS to others, but that's after using all others. And how I like gaming. But Microsoft doesn't have to let people have anything. Just look at the music industry copyright. Person downloads a song and they're looking to get sued into lifetime bankruptcy.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
Click Here
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix