I stumbled across an interesting article regarding the Windows XP EULA (End User License Agreement) and the Product Use Rights (PUR) document. I was stunned to read that, by using Windows XP on my computer, I have given Microsoft the right to connect to my computer and change the software that is running on my computer without my knowledge or consent.

The operative paragraph in the PUR is:"You acknowledge and agree that Microsoft may automatically check the version of the Product and/or its components that you are utilizing and may provide upgrades or fixes to the Product that will be automatically downloaded to your Workstation Computer."


Another paragraph from the article shines a light on the motive behind Microsoft's assertion of their right to access and update my computer at will:

Several readers were also worried that Microsoft's broad assertion of its right to access their computers would force their companies into noncompliance with government security guidelines and various privacy laws. This concern was exacerbated by additional PUR language in the same Windows XP section. In terms of "Security Updates," users grant Microsoft the right to download updates to Microsoft's DRM (Digital Rights Management) technology to protect the intellectual property rights of "Secured Content" providers. It says Microsoft may "download onto your computer such security updates that a secure content owner has requested that MS, Microsoft Corporation, or their subsidiaries distribute." In other words, it would seem Microsoft's idea of a security update is one that protects the property rights of vendors, not the security of customers' systems.


The full article may be read here (http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/02/02/11/020211opfoster.xml)

WHOA!!!

Well... That just entirely kills me even looking into upgrading to XP... I guess I'll stay a Windows2000 person for a looooooong, looooooong time.

<rant>
I do not like the idea of a company connecting to my computer and running software and updating my system without my knowledge... This is even more annyoing than "loadqm.exe"... Gee imagine running on a 56K and M$ decides you need this 20MB update, while youre on WHT...

On my computer there is only 1 program that accepts external requests. That one program is Apache. The other 2 that have access permission is my proxy, and MySQL. Anything else has to receive my permission, and is most likely told to bug off.

*nix, FreeBSD, etc is beginning to look like good options for the future... :D

Jeez, I upgraded to XP not long ago....maybe I should go buy Mandrake or SuSE or something :homer:

ya know you can just disable the autoupdate and you'll be fine...

As a XP user I say anyone that doesn't upgrade becuase of stories like this are just morons! You're willing to forego using the first truely stable OS to come out of redmond just becuase of some FUD? sheseh!

but honestly all this FUD going around lately is just a riot! :D :D

MS is a company just the same as any other. If they did anything that could royally screw over consumers they'd be digging their own grave! They aren't stupid people!

Far back as i can remember the chicken littles have been running around screaming how MS is gonna ruin our lives but I have yet to see it happen.

couldn't agree more. I very much doubt the upgrades are designed to do anything more than fine tune the application. Unless someone releases a dog of an update all is good.

Greg Moore

well, all people I know of using WinXP have nothing but problems with it. Some hardware part is not working right, system keeps crashing etc.
I got Win2000 ever since it came out. The only time I really did f*** it up was when I played around with the registry. I knew I could make it crash all together but I just wanted to see a few things. Except from that I never had any problems using Win2000!

Originally posted by sjau
all people I know of using WinXP have nothing but problems with it.
That's the general impression I'm getting from the limited people I know who have used it.

Are there any more positive comments about XP?


Lats...

People always bash MS product in a way or another anyway.

If (I said IF) Linux was also (I said IF) MS's product, there will (I said IF) be bashing as well for sure.

I've used XP on multiple workstations. So far no problems at all. On my mother in laws who has an old celeron it works a lot better then win2k did.

Not at all - I love Outlook, and Excel.

Top products.

Shame about about windows though :rolleyes:


Lats...

Originally posted by Dexter
ya know you can just disable the autoupdate and you'll be fine...

As a XP user I say anyone that doesn't upgrade becuase of stories like this are just morons! ...



It's not a "story". It is part of the license agreement that you have agreed to. Perhaps it is the people who use software without understanding the ramifications of the license agreements that should be more careful.

Read what the agreement says. You have to allow Microsoft access to your PC and servers if they are running Windows XP. This part of the agreement has corporate XP users very concerned.

Under the terms of the agreement, if you turn off the autoupdate "feature" Microsoft can disable your copy of Windows XP via the Product Activation "feature", because you will be in violation of the license agreement.

Those are the facts. You can choose to ignore them, or you can choose to play chicken with Microsoft to see just how far they are willing to go to enforce their License Agreement. (Microsoft lawyers are quite good, btw)

Me? I'm staying with Windows 2000 until the XP license is changed to be more favorable to the users.

What if someone other than microsoft learned how to send updates to your machine??

This is the problem with having features like this, if it lets someone in, it can let anyone in.... And yes, MS does use stuff like certificates to authenticate who they are, but remember, a group of people got a cert from verisign not to long ago saying they were MS...


What ever can happen, will happen....

My dad uses winxp with no problem at all, running with an old p3 450Mhz, XP for him is more stable than all the systems he used before, and as stable as win2k only slower. but for him its very good, because it is so user friendly for the entire family and all...

I myself use 2k and I love it and I tried slackware, and I tried XP and 98 and redhat.. nothing beats 2k. nothing.

Remember not too long ago when XP had an issue where a user connected to the 'Net with just a modem and no special services on could allow a remote person to take control over their system? Remember that big notice and update? Yeah, you can consider me one of those "chicken littles", I guess. I think people are taking it to the extreme both ways. People see too much bashing, so they get too defensive. I guess I'm a moron then, but I've been using an NT 4.0 server for the last 4 years with not ONE problem, ever -- not ever, not once and I abuse this system. Yes, XP does have problems, and stability issues. Perhaps you just haven't used the right 'feature' yet, or in the right way. I'm hardly bashing MS though, since I have no issues with my NT server. Sure, NT needs updates, but so does XP and NT never had these problems. Not to mention, an OS that *requires* 128+ megs of RAM, makes me think twice, when I can boot into another OS that will be more stable and faster. I'm not bashing Windows, I'm bashing XP (apparently any negative experience or knowledge of Windows is still considered bashing. So be it).

I've also heard issues with programs that I have. There will be no way I'll look into an OS where I cannot use my 3d programs reliably, or at all ($3,000 for a hobbyist is a lot, I cant afford no use my software). So, this doesnt make me a moron, just damn picky :D

Ive heard good things and bad about WinXP, but until *all* the apps I use *REQUIRE* WinXP, then I'll *think* about upgrading. Windows2k works fine for me so far, and I'll gladly stay where I'm at.

I do like Office 95 though, as a matter of fact I *still* use Office95. It isnt over powered in features, and I can get all my work done with it.

Why fix it, if it isnt broken?

I just dont like the idea of of XP's "features", but there are hacks to get rid of them. The more security "features" that are added into a program or OS, the higher value they are to crackers, and hackers... If there is a way for M$ to connect to your computer, what is gonig to stop a hacker? (besides being disconnected off a network and the Internet completely)

Just my other 2 cents...

Yes, I have very serious trust issues, especially when it comes to *MY* privacy.

A couple of other points; It is reasonable advice to say you shouldn't stay away from a product because of a lot of the bad things said. After all, yes, there are those that do genuinally bash products and some for no good reason. After all, I see issues with about any OS, not just MS products. I just look at it logically and reasonably. If XP was what I'd want out of an OS and didn't have some issues I'm concerned about, I'd probably be using it. A lot of it comes down to the fact that I don't need to, or need to risk it (not that it's all a risk). I'm just very serious about what I run and I don't want problems, I don't want things hidden until they are known and published, etc. A lot of products have issues, not just MS, but they have a way about them that makes me nervous. I'd rather use NT 4, than XP. I know it works well, and it does everything I could want or need. When NT doesn't fit the bill, maybe I'll try whatever is next after XP. I never used WinME, for example, because it's just crap. Then again, I'll probably not use Windows at all in the next week and then never again. Windows is a fine tool/product for a lot of it, but some versions do have a lot of issues. I mainly just do server stuff anyway and I don't like Windows or work on them anymore, so I can use the interface in X, Gnome or whatever if I need or want that. I'd just either use NT or 2000, which have proven the entire time they've been out, that they were built more intelligently than the newer XP was. Granted, NT and 2000 have a few years of many, many issues, but they were with services, not just out of the box insecure. Oh, I don't know, I like and don't like Windows, but I think of most things as a server issue, unless I am using Photoshop or some audio editing tool or whatever, so I'll not comment any further, since I really haven't thought about XP beyond that and what I've said above.

Originally posted by Tim_Greer
A couple of other points; It is reasonable advice to say you shouldn't stay away from a product because of a lot of the bad things said.....


Tim, I've been in general agreement with the comments you've posted on this thread.

I'd just like to restate -- my original message was not about the stability, or lack thereof, in Windows XP. The message was about the license agreements that XP users have agreed to abide by.

It is those license agreements that I find onerous and terribly one-sided in Microsoft's favor.

Originally posted by Mike the newbie
It's not a "story". It is part of the license agreement that you have agreed to. Perhaps it is the people who use software without understanding the ramifications of the license agreements that should be more careful.

Read what the agreement says. You have to allow Microsoft access to your PC and servers if they are running Windows XP. This part of the agreement has corporate XP users very concerned.

Under the terms of the agreement, if you turn off the autoupdate "feature" Microsoft can disable your copy of Windows XP via the Product Activation "feature", because you will be in violation of the license agreement.

Those are the facts. You can choose to ignore them, or you can choose to play chicken with Microsoft to see just how far they are willing to go to enforce their License Agreement. (Microsoft lawyers are quite good, btw)

Yeah right. Windows gives you the option to turn off automatic updating, which would be against the License Agreement?! Why would they give you the option to do anything against a License Agreement?? That would be plain stupid.

This *must be* a story. Just taken a small part out of the License Agreement and pulled it out of it's perspective. Very easy to do and it feeds the hype about 'bad bad Microsoft'.

You can choose to ignore the 'bad storytellers' or you can choose to play chicken with them and turn paranoid... :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Change


Yeah right. Windows gives you the option to turn off automatic updating, which would be against the License Agreement?! Why would they give you the option to do anything against a License Agreement??

The license agreement says you cannot make unauthorized copies, yet Windows XP provides the commands to make copies of files.

If you choose to turn off Auto-Updating, then you are also choosing to allow Microsoft to revoke your license to use Windows XP.

It is really simple, actually. Read the license agreement, and see if there are any parts which contradict the portion I have posted here. I checked, there aren't. And some corporate lawyers are becoming rather concerned about this.

So rather than burying my head in the sands of optimistic denial, I'll choose to stay with Windows 2000 for now.

I do notice that you've not produced any factual substantiation of the assertions you've been posting on this thread. Have you even taken the time to read the license argreement?

I haven't read the license agreement, since I'd have to be installing XP to see it. However, even if this is the case -- does anyone really think Microsoft would actually take any action or disable someone's license for disabling the auto-update? (Actually, how could MS do this, if they didn't have access to the system anyway? How is this done in XP -- is it always making a connection to them somehow??) Or, is that their way of making sure they can connect to user's systems that are using it to further prevent cracked versions or rather, shared licensing? After all, it's pretty easy to get past XP's license registration online, from what I have heard. Maybe this is something MS is proactive about, since their big deal about online registration is so easily circumvented (I don't know why anyone would bother). Since I'm not using XP, and don't really have any plans to, I probably won't know too much about this issue, especially since I also don't plan to really investigate it or anything else, unless I change my mind at a later date and decide to -- so I personally don't care -- but if they are doing this to validate licenses or something else, which would justify them actually disabling someone's license in the future, then they should state so -- or why would they care?

Originally posted by Mike the newbie


The license agreement says you cannot make unauthorized copies, yet Windows XP provides the commands to make copies of files.

If you choose to turn off Auto-Updating, then you are also choosing to allow Microsoft to revoke your license to use Windows XP.

It is really simple, actually. Read the license agreement, and see if there are any parts which contradict the portion I have posted here. I checked, there aren't. And some corporate lawyers are becoming rather concerned about this.

So rather than burying my head in the sands of optimistic denial, I'll choose to stay with Windows 2000 for now.

I do notice that you've not produced any factual substantiation of the assertions you've been posting on this thread. Have you even taken the time to read the license argreement?

No I did not read the license agreement, but since it all sounded rather ludicrous, I didn't feel the need to. Since you find that important, I read the most important parts for your statement. The license agreement starts with:

"This End-User License Agreement ("EULA") is a legal agreement between you (either an individual or a single entity) and Microsoft Corporation for the Microsoft software product identified above, which includes computer software and may include associated media, printed materials, "online" or electronic documentation, and Internet-based services ("Product"). "

So.. the Product = Windows XP. Not any other software, only Windows XP.

Part you're worried about states:
"You acknowledge and agree that Microsoft may automatically check the version of the Product and/or its components that you are utilizing and may provide upgrades or fixes to the Product that will be automatically downloaded to your Workstation Computer."

First of all, it just checks the version. Not anything else. Second, it's only downloaded to your PC, *not* installed. So it seems to me this part has been inserted to allow the automatic downloading feature of updates from Windows Update.

It doesn't state you cannot prevent MS from doing so. They don't offer the option to turn if off for nothing either - like I stated before. It is saying 'MS *may* check', not 'MS *will* check'.

Furthermore your comparison with file copying doesn't make sense at all. To make a good comparison it would have to be like this:
- EULA states you cannot copy file a.bcd.
- In Windows you get the option to turn on/off copying of file a.bcd (which of course won't be there if it's in the EULA).

In that case the option would simply not be there.. it would be a bit silly wouldn't it? It's like sticking a note on a bag of money stating: Don't steal this bag or remove it from its place. And then putting that bag on the busiest square you can find. :rolleyes:

So this is all just paranoia and a paragraph taken out of context...

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
running with an old p3 450Mhz

Maybe Ive been asleep for 100 years or something...since when has this been classed as old!

Simon

*lol*

Actually I've been thinking my 800mhz PIII is getting 'old' now

Greg Moore

I have two custom built overclocked Athlons running with XP PRO and it is the best OS that M$ has ever come out with. I'm no fan of M$ either, but when a products works well I have to give it credit.

Originally posted by web docta
I have two custom built overclocked Athlons running with XP PRO and it is the best OS that M$ has ever come out with. I'm no fan of M$ either, but when a products works well I have to give it credit.

I honestly can't stand XP..and I can't see how anybody else can either. It's so much worse then NT/2000 in just about every way. Their new kiddish interface isn't even implemented on all the windows half the time (go to the command prompt)..plus there are a few other ones - not that matters, but..like I said, there is a ton more wrong with it than nt/2000

Originally posted by mkaufman


I honestly can't stand XP..and I can't see how anybody else can either. It's so much worse then NT/2000 in just about every way. Their new kiddish interface isn't even implemented on all the windows half the time (go to the command prompt)..plus there are a few other ones - not that matters, but..like I said, there is a ton more wrong with it than nt/2000

I'm curious as to exactly what kind of issues are you having? What applications are you running?