Validation of XP [Archive]

LVTravel

July 2nd 07, 09:35 PM

And once you get the software reinstalled on the computer also purchase and
install a cloning program to clone a properly activated, uninfected version
of the hard drive onto a USB hard drive that you can also purchase. When
the 12 year old gets all the nasty files again simply overwrite the hard
drive and you don't have to reinstall and reactivate.

Of course the real fix is to monitor your 12 year old's messaging and
computer use. If she is getting nastys on her computer who is she talking
to and where is she going on the computer? Obviously not anyplace I would
want a minor to be.

"Marcin Domaslawski" > wrote in message
...
> Hi,
>
> It's only little protection to scare someone who gives his serial number
> others. Just dial to call center and an lady will give you activation code
> at all.
>
> Marcin Domaslawski
>
>
> "Desperateparents" > wrote in
> message ...
>> We have 3 PC's at home. We each have a copy of the XP CD, all purchased
>> and
>> real.
>>
>> My 12 year old has had problems requiring frequent reinstall's etc. I
>> suspect she gets nasty files via chat.
>>
>> Anyway. She now gets a message saying the CD has been used too many times
>> and cannot be used again. Why? We paid for it?
>>
>> How do I fix this, or rather how does Microsoft fix this. My 12 year
>> old's
>> immediate reaction was "Why do we use this platform if they cheat us out
>> of
>> our software?".
>>
>> Help!
>

July 2nd 07, 09:45 PM

On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 13:08:02 -0700, Desperateparents
> wrote:

>We have 3 PC's at home. We each have a copy of the XP CD, all purchased and
>real.
>
>My 12 year old has had problems requiring frequent reinstall's etc. I
>suspect she gets nasty files via chat.
>
>Anyway. She now gets a message saying the CD has been used too many times
>and cannot be used again. Why? We paid for it?
>
>How do I fix this, or rather how does Microsoft fix this. My 12 year old's
>immediate reaction was "Why do we use this platform if they cheat us out of
>our software?".
>
>Help!

If my 12 year old's PC needed constant re-installation of the OS, I
would tell him not to blame microsoft but (a) to stop downloading crap
off the net that screws up his machine and (b) that either he or his
parent (wait! That'd be me!) should install decent
antispy/virus/nastyware as a basic preventative measure.

And I should add that if you find nastyware that screws up your OS on
your kid's machine there's a good chance that there are some pretty
unsavoury websites in the history as well (I speak from experience).

I cannot stand those people who preach at other PC parents about how
to raise their kids, so I won't. I just tell you that frequent
reinstalls are a symptom of very poor 'PC hygiene' which needs to be
addressed urgently. Be grateful for the wake-up call from Microsoft,
even if that's not how they meant it.

In the meantime, when the OS says you can't install it anymore
(unusual unless your kid's given the XP authorisation number to
someone else with a non-legit copy of Windows) phone up the helpline
the verification routine gives you and plod through the manual
verification procedure. no-one wll give you a hard time. It is there
to help prevent piracy by making manual authorisations a
time-consuming pain in the ass.

hth

Desperateparents

July 2nd 07, 10:24 PM

Thanks to Martin and LV. I appreciate your quick and accurate advice.

To NL. You preach and rant and then say you hate parents who do that. Mirror
time.

As to your supposed reply. All virus, spyware detection and firewall
software is current and up to date. Always. Yours?

It's a she and she only uses Microsoft Messenger and does not download other
files on her PC. If she wants that she does it on my PC with my supervision
and agreement. So I suspect any nasties come through a Microsoft product.

And no she doesn't go to the nasty sites you talk about. Of course we
monitor what she does.

It is only my suspicion that there are nasty files through chat, which you
will note is Microsoft.

Get off your preaching soapbox and get a life.

Sickened parent, by NL that is.

"Desperateparents" wrote:

> We have 3 PC's at home. We each have a copy of the XP CD, all purchased and
> real.
>
> My 12 year old has had problems requiring frequent reinstall's etc. I
> suspect she gets nasty files via chat.
>
> Anyway. She now gets a message saying the CD has been used too many times
> and cannot be used again. Why? We paid for it?
>
> How do I fix this, or rather how does Microsoft fix this. My 12 year old's
> immediate reaction was "Why do we use this platform if they cheat us out of
> our software?".
>
> Help!

Runswithfish

July 2nd 07, 11:00 PM

I don't believe you can get a "nasty" by just using a chat program such as
MSN. Same as ICQ, YM, ect. . Some type of file transfer would have to take
place. Could be she just downloaded some music, or someone sent her a file
which was infected (if thats what caused the problem). Also, not every nasty
comes from adult sites. I've seen them come from sites which pose as fan
sites (music/movies), computer sites, even one selling furniture. Though
don't blame micro$oft if you ever get infected, blame your security software
for not doing it's job (anti-virus, malware, and so on).

"Desperateparents" wrote:

> Thanks to Martin and LV. I appreciate your quick and accurate advice.
>
> To NL. You preach and rant and then say you hate parents who do that. Mirror
> time.
>
> As to your supposed reply. All virus, spyware detection and firewall
> software is current and up to date. Always. Yours?
>
> It's a she and she only uses Microsoft Messenger and does not download other
> files on her PC. If she wants that she does it on my PC with my supervision
> and agreement. So I suspect any nasties come through a Microsoft product.
>
> And no she doesn't go to the nasty sites you talk about. Of course we
> monitor what she does.
>
> It is only my suspicion that there are nasty files through chat, which you
> will note is Microsoft.
>
> Get off your preaching soapbox and get a life.
>
>
> Sickened parent, by NL that is.
>
>
> "Desperateparents" wrote:
>
> > We have 3 PC's at home. We each have a copy of the XP CD, all purchased and
> > real.
> >
> > My 12 year old has had problems requiring frequent reinstall's etc. I
> > suspect she gets nasty files via chat.
> >
> > Anyway. She now gets a message saying the CD has been used too many times
> > and cannot be used again. Why? We paid for it?
> >
> > How do I fix this, or rather how does Microsoft fix this. My 12 year old's
> > immediate reaction was "Why do we use this platform if they cheat us out of
> > our software?".
> >
> > Help!

July 3rd 07, 12:02 AM

nl wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 13:08:02 -0700, Desperateparents
> > wrote:
>
>> We have 3 PC's at home. We each have a copy of the XP CD, all
>> purchased and real.
>>
>> My 12 year old has had problems requiring frequent reinstall's etc. I
>> suspect she gets nasty files via chat.
>>
>> Anyway. She now gets a message saying the CD has been used too many
>> times and cannot be used again. Why? We paid for it?
>>
>> How do I fix this, or rather how does Microsoft fix this. My 12 year
>> old's immediate reaction was "Why do we use this platform if they
>> cheat us out of our software?".
>>
>> Help!
>
> If my 12 year old's PC needed constant re-installation of the OS, I
> would tell him not to blame microsoft but (a) to stop downloading crap
> off the net that screws up his machine and (b) that either he or his
> parent (wait! That'd be me!) should install decent
> antispy/virus/nastyware as a basic preventative measure.
>
> And I should add that if you find nastyware that screws up your OS on
> your kid's machine there's a good chance that there are some pretty
> unsavoury websites in the history as well (I speak from experience).
>
> I cannot stand those people who preach at other PC parents about how
> to raise their kids, so I won't. I just tell you that frequent
> reinstalls are a symptom of very poor 'PC hygiene' which needs to be
> addressed urgently. Be grateful for the wake-up call from Microsoft,
> even if that's not how they meant it.
>
> In the meantime, when the OS says you can't install it anymore
> (unusual unless your kid's given the XP authorisation number to
> someone else with a non-legit copy of Windows) phone up the helpline
> the verification routine gives you and plod through the manual
> verification procedure. no-one wll give you a hard time. It is there
> to help prevent piracy by making manual authorisations a
> time-consuming pain in the ass.
>
> hth

So it's the user's fault that MS has released an OS that is prone to
viruses/malware? I agree that everyone should practice safe surfing habits
but MS is certainly to blame for all this mess Granted, we will never be
truly rid of viruses but it certainly shouldn't be as big a problem as we
see today.

sgopus

July 3rd 07, 12:04 AM

it's very easy to cause a system to go nuts using some type of malware via
IRC, I have experienced this in the past, someone savy caused my system to
not only close messenger but log me off and reboot the system, I no longer
use IRC, nor chatrooms, but by experience I can tell you things can be
installed via messanger
and without having to go to a improper site nor chat room.

"Desperateparents" wrote:

> Thanks to Martin and LV. I appreciate your quick and accurate advice.
>
> To NL. You preach and rant and then say you hate parents who do that. Mirror
> time.
>
> As to your supposed reply. All virus, spyware detection and firewall
> software is current and up to date. Always. Yours?
>
> It's a she and she only uses Microsoft Messenger and does not download other
> files on her PC. If she wants that she does it on my PC with my supervision
> and agreement. So I suspect any nasties come through a Microsoft product.
>
> And no she doesn't go to the nasty sites you talk about. Of course we
> monitor what she does.
>
> It is only my suspicion that there are nasty files through chat, which you
> will note is Microsoft.
>
> Get off your preaching soapbox and get a life.
>
>
> Sickened parent, by NL that is.
>
>
> "Desperateparents" wrote:
>
> > We have 3 PC's at home. We each have a copy of the XP CD, all purchased and
> > real.
> >
> > My 12 year old has had problems requiring frequent reinstall's etc. I
> > suspect she gets nasty files via chat.
> >
> > Anyway. She now gets a message saying the CD has been used too many times
> > and cannot be used again. Why? We paid for it?
> >
> > How do I fix this, or rather how does Microsoft fix this. My 12 year old's
> > immediate reaction was "Why do we use this platform if they cheat us out of
> > our software?".
> >
> > Help!

July 3rd 07, 12:04 AM

And to take that one step further...you should create a limited user account
for the child

LVTravel wrote:
> And once you get the software reinstalled on the computer also
> purchase and install a cloning program to clone a properly activated,
> uninfected version of the hard drive onto a USB hard drive that you
> can also purchase. When the 12 year old gets all the nasty files
> again simply overwrite the hard drive and you don't have to reinstall
> and reactivate.
>
> Of course the real fix is to monitor your 12 year old's messaging and
> computer use. If she is getting nastys on her computer who is she
> talking to and where is she going on the computer? Obviously not
> anyplace I would want a minor to be.
>
>
> "Marcin Domaslawski" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Hi,
>>
>> It's only little protection to scare someone who gives his serial
>> number others. Just dial to call center and an lady will give you
>> activation code at all.
>>
>> Marcin Domaslawski
>>
>>
>> "Desperateparents" >
>> wrote in message
>> ...
>>> We have 3 PC's at home. We each have a copy of the XP CD, all
>>> purchased and
>>> real.
>>>
>>> My 12 year old has had problems requiring frequent reinstall's etc.
>>> I suspect she gets nasty files via chat.
>>>
>>> Anyway. She now gets a message saying the CD has been used too many
>>> times and cannot be used again. Why? We paid for it?
>>>
>>> How do I fix this, or rather how does Microsoft fix this. My 12 year
>>> old's
>>> immediate reaction was "Why do we use this platform if they cheat
>>> us out of
>>> our software?".
>>>
>>> Help!

July 3rd 07, 12:05 AM

On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 14:24:01 -0700, Desperateparents
> wrote:

>Thanks to Martin and LV. I appreciate your quick and accurate advice.
>
>To NL. You preach and rant and then say you hate parents who do that. Mirror
>time.

I did say that I learned these lesson from my own experience, so I'm
not in a position to preach to anyone. I'm just telling you that you
usually don't have to re-install your OS unless there is something
seriously wrong either with your protection or your kid's browsing
habits. My kids chat to mates on MSN and I've never had to re-install
the OS once.

I did once have to clean off a Trojan that appeared when my son
downloaded a program recommended by his best friend, whom I had not
realised was such an idiot.

It is possible there is some activity going on your daughter is not
aware of, maybe because she clicked on something and nothing appeared
to happen, and she forgot about it.
>
>As to your supposed reply. All virus, spyware detection and firewall
>software is current and up to date. Always. Yours?

Yes! I'm not the one on Usenet asking for help!
>
>It's a she and she only uses Microsoft Messenger and does not download other
>files on her PC. If she wants that she does it on my PC with my supervision
>and agreement. So I suspect any nasties come through a Microsoft product.

>And no she doesn't go to the nasty sites you talk about. Of course we
>monitor what she does.

You said you 'suspect she get nasty files via chat' which suggests
you're not monitoring her that closely.
>
>It is only my suspicion that there are nasty files through chat, which you
>will note is Microsoft.
>
>Get off your preaching soapbox and get a life.

Gimme a break - you complain your kid's system is so screwed up you're
constantly having to re-install the OS, and when a fellow parent tries
to offer you advice from their own experience about proper protection
for anyone using the Net you get all defensive and accuse me of
preaching. I'm not passing judgement on you or your offspring and I'm
not telling you what's right or what's wrong. I'm offering advice on
how to prevent this situation re-occuring.

(Go to a software forum and start a thread about any Net Nanny type
program. You'll find yourself barracked from all sides by idiots
telling you how to raise your children. That's what I can't abide and
that's what I was trying - clearly without success - not to do.)

A final note, on a completely different tack:

If you have had to reinstall the OS several times, and your daughter
has never given the XP authorisation number to someone else, and now
the authorisation routine is claiming that you cannot use this
validation number any more, you might have a hardware problem.

The validation number is generated by the machine itself from the
hardware in the box. If the system has not been changed substantially
then the same authorisation code should work every time. If the
routine keeps failing because it thinks it's finding different
hardware -ie thinks it's in a new machine - it could be a sign of a
faulty motherboard where components are failing.

This would account for bizarre system failures and constant
re-installs of the OS, without any dodgy software being downloaded
from anywhere by any user. So you might want to consider that.

Good luck.

July 3rd 07, 12:13 AM

I tend to agree with this. While bugs/security vulnerabilities are found in
chatting software from time to time I would hazard to guess something else
is at fault. Downloading from P2P networks (Kazaa, eMule, etc) can be a
quick way to compromise a system. If your daughter is unaware of what's
causing the problem then I would suggest locking down the computer (at least
temporarily) until you can pin down the source. Have them run within a
limited/regular user account, use an alternate browser (Firefox, Opera,
etc), use an alternate chat client (eg Miranda, Trillian).

Runswithfish wrote:
> I don't believe you can get a "nasty" by just using a chat program
> such as MSN. Same as ICQ, YM, ect. . Some type of file transfer would
> have to take place. Could be she just downloaded some music, or
> someone sent her a file which was infected (if thats what caused the
> problem). Also, not every nasty comes from adult sites. I've seen
> them come from sites which pose as fan sites (music/movies), computer
> sites, even one selling furniture. Though don't blame micro$oft if
> you ever get infected, blame your security software for not doing
> it's job (anti-virus, malware, and so on).
>
> "Desperateparents" wrote:
>
>> Thanks to Martin and LV. I appreciate your quick and accurate advice.
>>
>> To NL. You preach and rant and then say you hate parents who do
>> that. Mirror time.
>>
>> As to your supposed reply. All virus, spyware detection and firewall
>> software is current and up to date. Always. Yours?
>>
>> It's a she and she only uses Microsoft Messenger and does not
>> download other files on her PC. If she wants that she does it on my
>> PC with my supervision and agreement. So I suspect any nasties come
>> through a Microsoft product.
>>
>> And no she doesn't go to the nasty sites you talk about. Of course we
>> monitor what she does.
>>
>> It is only my suspicion that there are nasty files through chat,
>> which you will note is Microsoft.
>>
>> Get off your preaching soapbox and get a life.
>>
>>
>> Sickened parent, by NL that is.
>>
>>
>> "Desperateparents" wrote:
>>
>>> We have 3 PC's at home. We each have a copy of the XP CD, all
>>> purchased and real.
>>>
>>> My 12 year old has had problems requiring frequent reinstall's etc.
>>> I suspect she gets nasty files via chat.
>>>
>>> Anyway. She now gets a message saying the CD has been used too many
>>> times and cannot be used again. Why? We paid for it?
>>>
>>> How do I fix this, or rather how does Microsoft fix this. My 12
>>> year old's immediate reaction was "Why do we use this platform if
>>> they cheat us out of our software?".
>>>
>>> Help!

Rock

July 3rd 07, 12:15 AM

"Desperateparents" wrote
> We have 3 PC's at home. We each have a copy of the XP CD, all purchased
> and
> real.
>
> My 12 year old has had problems requiring frequent reinstall's etc. I
> suspect she gets nasty files via chat.
>
> Anyway. She now gets a message saying the CD has been used too many times
> and cannot be used again. Why? We paid for it?
>
> How do I fix this, or rather how does Microsoft fix this. My 12 year old's
> immediate reaction was "Why do we use this platform if they cheat us out
> of
> our software?".

For the activation question, that message is misleading. What it really
means is that you have to activate by telephone. Start activation again and
when it is refused over the net choose the telephone activation.

As to your issue of needing constant reinstalls, it seems you are going
about this reactively instead of proactively.

First thing to do is after the system is installed with all apps working and
with a 3rd party firewall, AV program and antispyware apps, image the system
to an external hard drive using Acronis True Image version 10. Then if
something damages the installation you can restore this image and be back
running, without needing activation, in about an hour. ATI also does file
backup and disk cloning. You can save this base image, then image the
system regularly and do file backup as an added measure of protection for
the data, but know that if the system get's infected any backups made of the
data after the time of infection are suspect and shouldn't be used. So keep
that initial clean system image in a separate location.

Here are some links for practicing safe hex, and dealing with malware. You
daughter's account should be a limited user account. You can't blame the OS
for the problems. She needs to learn not to click on and install every
interesting looking screen saver or file her friends send her. It's not
that hard to keep a system clean, it just takes some common sense.

Besides a good AV program there should be several programs that deal with
non viral malware. Also in addition to the resident AV scanner you could
install a second AV program to run occasionally on demand, as a double
check.

For AV, avoid Norton or McAfee. I use AVast (free). Some like AVG (free);
NOD32 and Kaspersky, both paid, are excellent.

For non viral malware there is Ad-Aware (new version 2007 just released),
SpyBot S&D, Windows Defender, SUPERAntiSpyware, AVG AntiSpyware, BHO Demon,
Spyware Blaster (this is passive protection to prevent malware from being
installed), and HijackThis, to name some of them.

For firewall I recommend either Sunbelt Software's Kerio Personal Firewall
(free and paid) or Comodo Personal Firewall (free).

http://www.cert.org/tech_tips/before_you_plug_in.html#III

http://www.claymania.com/safe-hex.html

Why did I get infected in the first place
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=27971

Protect Your PC
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/

Malware Removal
http://www.elephantboycomputers.com/page2.html#Removing_Malware

THE PARASITE FIGHT
Finding, Removing & Protecting Yourself From Scumware
http://aumha.org/a/parasite.htm

Richard Harperâ€™s Guide to Cleaning Pests
http://rgharper.mvps.org/cleanit.htm

--
Rock [MS-MVP User/Shell]

Gary S. Terhune

July 3rd 07, 12:26 AM

Windows is no more "prone" to viruses & malware than any other OS that can
do comparable tasks. It's just the main game in town and therefore the
biggest target.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"GO" > wrote in message
...
> nl wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 13:08:02 -0700, Desperateparents
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> We have 3 PC's at home. We each have a copy of the XP CD, all
>>> purchased and real.
>>>
>>> My 12 year old has had problems requiring frequent reinstall's etc. I
>>> suspect she gets nasty files via chat.
>>>
>>> Anyway. She now gets a message saying the CD has been used too many
>>> times and cannot be used again. Why? We paid for it?
>>>
>>> How do I fix this, or rather how does Microsoft fix this. My 12 year
>>> old's immediate reaction was "Why do we use this platform if they
>>> cheat us out of our software?".
>>>
>>> Help!
>>
>> If my 12 year old's PC needed constant re-installation of the OS, I
>> would tell him not to blame microsoft but (a) to stop downloading crap
>> off the net that screws up his machine and (b) that either he or his
>> parent (wait! That'd be me!) should install decent
>> antispy/virus/nastyware as a basic preventative measure.
>>
>> And I should add that if you find nastyware that screws up your OS on
>> your kid's machine there's a good chance that there are some pretty
>> unsavoury websites in the history as well (I speak from experience).
>>
>> I cannot stand those people who preach at other PC parents about how
>> to raise their kids, so I won't. I just tell you that frequent
>> reinstalls are a symptom of very poor 'PC hygiene' which needs to be
>> addressed urgently. Be grateful for the wake-up call from Microsoft,
>> even if that's not how they meant it.
>>
>> In the meantime, when the OS says you can't install it anymore
>> (unusual unless your kid's given the XP authorisation number to
>> someone else with a non-legit copy of Windows) phone up the helpline
>> the verification routine gives you and plod through the manual
>> verification procedure. no-one wll give you a hard time. It is there
>> to help prevent piracy by making manual authorisations a
>> time-consuming pain in the ass.
>>
>> hth
>
> So it's the user's fault that MS has released an OS that is prone to
> viruses/malware? I agree that everyone should practice safe surfing
> habits
> but MS is certainly to blame for all this mess Granted, we will never be
> truly rid of viruses but it certainly shouldn't be as big a problem as we
> see today.
>
>

Ronnie Vernon MVP

July 3rd 07, 12:29 AM

You simply need to use the telephone option to activate that copy of XP. The
activation will not be denied.

--

Ronnie Vernon
Microsoft MVP
Windows Shell/User

"Desperateparents" > wrote in
message ...
> We have 3 PC's at home. We each have a copy of the XP CD, all purchased
> and
> real.
>
> My 12 year old has had problems requiring frequent reinstall's etc. I
> suspect she gets nasty files via chat.
>
> Anyway. She now gets a message saying the CD has been used too many times
> and cannot be used again. Why? We paid for it?
>
> How do I fix this, or rather how does Microsoft fix this. My 12 year old's
> immediate reaction was "Why do we use this platform if they cheat us out
> of
> our software?".
>
> Help!

PA Bear

July 3rd 07, 12:40 AM

<pft> Now pull the other one!

You need MS SteadyState!
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/winfamily/sharedaccess/default.mspx

Why did I get infected in the first place
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=27971
--
~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
MS MVP-Windows (IE, OE, Security, Shell/User)
AumHa VSOP & Admin; DTS-L.org

Desperateparents wrote:
<snip>
> It's a she and she only uses Microsoft Messenger and does not download
> other
> files on her PC. If she wants that she does it on my PC with my
> supervision
> and agreement. So I suspect any nasties come through a Microsoft product.

July 3rd 07, 02:10 AM

> "GO" > wrote in message
> ...
>> nl wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 13:08:02 -0700, Desperateparents
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> We have 3 PC's at home. We each have a copy of the XP CD, all
>>>> purchased and real.
>>>>
>>>> My 12 year old has had problems requiring frequent reinstall's
>>>> etc. I suspect she gets nasty files via chat.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway. She now gets a message saying the CD has been used too many
>>>> times and cannot be used again. Why? We paid for it?
>>>>
>>>> How do I fix this, or rather how does Microsoft fix this. My 12
>>>> year old's immediate reaction was "Why do we use this platform if
>>>> they cheat us out of our software?".
>>>>
>>>> Help!
>>>
>>> If my 12 year old's PC needed constant re-installation of the OS, I
>>> would tell him not to blame microsoft but (a) to stop downloading
>>> crap off the net that screws up his machine and (b) that either he
>>> or his parent (wait! That'd be me!) should install decent
>>> antispy/virus/nastyware as a basic preventative measure.
>>>
>>> And I should add that if you find nastyware that screws up your OS
>>> on your kid's machine there's a good chance that there are some
>>> pretty unsavoury websites in the history as well (I speak from
>>> experience).
>>>
>>> I cannot stand those people who preach at other PC parents about how
>>> to raise their kids, so I won't. I just tell you that frequent
>>> reinstalls are a symptom of very poor 'PC hygiene' which needs to be
>>> addressed urgently. Be grateful for the wake-up call from Microsoft,
>>> even if that's not how they meant it.
>>>
>>> In the meantime, when the OS says you can't install it anymore
>>> (unusual unless your kid's given the XP authorisation number to
>>> someone else with a non-legit copy of Windows) phone up the helpline
>>> the verification routine gives you and plod through the manual
>>> verification procedure. no-one wll give you a hard time. It is
>>> there to help prevent piracy by making manual authorisations a
>>> time-consuming pain in the ass.
>>>
>>> hth
>>
>> So it's the user's fault that MS has released an OS that is prone to
>> viruses/malware? I agree that everyone should practice safe surfing
>> habits
>> but MS is certainly to blame for all this mess Granted, we will
>> never be truly rid of viruses but it certainly shouldn't be as big a
>> problem as we see today.

Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> Windows is no more "prone" to viruses & malware than any other OS
> that can do comparable tasks. It's just the main game in town and
> therefore the biggest target.

I'll agree with you that MS/Windows is obviously a bigger target but that
makes it all the more prudent that MS takes an effort to release a secure
operating system. But to deny that it is a more prone OS to infection
you're just kidding yourself. There are a number of reasons that makes this
true, but the primary reason is the simple fact that users are running the
OS as an administrator by default.

Daave

July 3rd 07, 02:48 AM

nl wrote:
> A final note, on a completely different tack:
>
> If you have had to reinstall the OS several times, and your daughter
> has never given the XP authorisation number to someone else, and now
> the authorisation routine is claiming that you cannot use this
> validation number any more, you might have a hardware problem.
>
> The validation number is generated by the machine itself from the
> hardware in the box. If the system has not been changed substantially
> then the same authorisation code should work every time.

I'm pretty sure that reinstallations within 120 days automatically trip
the validation message. See:

http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/wpa.php

Uncle Grumpy

July 3rd 07, 03:58 AM

"Daave" > wrote:

> If the system has not been changed substantially
>> then the same authorisation code should work every time.
>
>I'm pretty sure that reinstallations within 120 days automatically trip
>the validation message.

ONLY if the system has been substantially changed (like, three of the
checked items or more).

Gary S. Terhune

July 3rd 07, 04:00 AM

So you basically agree that it's not the OS that is faulty, it's bad
practices and the fact that Windows is so friendly to apps that themselves
are faulty. I'm always hearing people complain that Windows doesn't do this
or that natively, and one of those things is malware protection. If Windows
did all those things, MS would be hit with more anti-trust litigation than
they already have been. I would think that even making Windows do some kind
of quality control of apps would have similar results.

As for the default admin account, I'm of two minds. Especially during
initial setup, admin permissions are frequently required. I certainly
wouldn't want the default to be a limited user account, but that's me -- I
run as an admin all the time and don't have any resulting problems because
I'm diligent about other good practices. With the way I use Windows, it
would be a royal PITA to be switching back & forth. Only thing I can think
of is to make a very strong, in-your-face greeting that would push you to
create a limited user account and explain in detail why this is good
practice, but not force it.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"GO" > wrote in message
...
>
>> "GO" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> nl wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 13:08:02 -0700, Desperateparents
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> We have 3 PC's at home. We each have a copy of the XP CD, all
>>>>> purchased and real.
>>>>>
>>>>> My 12 year old has had problems requiring frequent reinstall's
>>>>> etc. I suspect she gets nasty files via chat.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway. She now gets a message saying the CD has been used too many
>>>>> times and cannot be used again. Why? We paid for it?
>>>>>
>>>>> How do I fix this, or rather how does Microsoft fix this. My 12
>>>>> year old's immediate reaction was "Why do we use this platform if
>>>>> they cheat us out of our software?".
>>>>>
>>>>> Help!
>>>>
>>>> If my 12 year old's PC needed constant re-installation of the OS, I
>>>> would tell him not to blame microsoft but (a) to stop downloading
>>>> crap off the net that screws up his machine and (b) that either he
>>>> or his parent (wait! That'd be me!) should install decent
>>>> antispy/virus/nastyware as a basic preventative measure.
>>>>
>>>> And I should add that if you find nastyware that screws up your OS
>>>> on your kid's machine there's a good chance that there are some
>>>> pretty unsavoury websites in the history as well (I speak from
>>>> experience).
>>>>
>>>> I cannot stand those people who preach at other PC parents about how
>>>> to raise their kids, so I won't. I just tell you that frequent
>>>> reinstalls are a symptom of very poor 'PC hygiene' which needs to be
>>>> addressed urgently. Be grateful for the wake-up call from Microsoft,
>>>> even if that's not how they meant it.
>>>>
>>>> In the meantime, when the OS says you can't install it anymore
>>>> (unusual unless your kid's given the XP authorisation number to
>>>> someone else with a non-legit copy of Windows) phone up the helpline
>>>> the verification routine gives you and plod through the manual
>>>> verification procedure. no-one wll give you a hard time. It is
>>>> there to help prevent piracy by making manual authorisations a
>>>> time-consuming pain in the ass.
>>>>
>>>> hth
>>>
>>> So it's the user's fault that MS has released an OS that is prone to
>>> viruses/malware? I agree that everyone should practice safe surfing
>>> habits
>>> but MS is certainly to blame for all this mess Granted, we will
>>> never be truly rid of viruses but it certainly shouldn't be as big a
>>> problem as we see today.
>
> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>> Windows is no more "prone" to viruses & malware than any other OS
>> that can do comparable tasks. It's just the main game in town and
>> therefore the biggest target.
>
> I'll agree with you that MS/Windows is obviously a bigger target but that
> makes it all the more prudent that MS takes an effort to release a secure
> operating system. But to deny that it is a more prone OS to infection
> you're just kidding yourself. There are a number of reasons that makes
> this
> true, but the primary reason is the simple fact that users are running the
> OS as an administrator by default.
>
>

Gary S. Terhune

July 3rd 07, 05:27 AM

Enough for now, except to mention that UAC caused me to reboot to WinXP
within 20 minutes of trying Vista. I've tried it a couple of times more,
trying to wrap my head around it and learn to work with it, but...

I suppose there's a way to totally disable UAC, but I get so disgusted that
I lose patience and dump the whole project.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"GO" > wrote in message
...
>I think we're sort of on the same wave length now. Windows can be a secure
> OS when you have the proper mind-set/practices, but your average user does
> not. And you can't fault them for that as they just want a "box" that
> works, so ultimately it's Windows/MS's responsibility to provide a
> safe/secure environment.
>
> And you're right, switching back and forth is a PITA. MS should have made
> better use of and a more robust "runas" feature. The OS/applications also
> needs to be more limited account friendly too. Things have improved
> considerably but there is still room for improvment; games come to mind,
> as
> there shouldn't be any reason you need to run as admin to play a game.
>
> As to what MS can do? An "in-your-face" greeting with a
> tutorial/explaination about admin vs limited accounts would be a good
> idea.
> It liekly wouldn't solve all the problems but I'm sure it would help. UAC
> (in Vista) is a step in the right direction although I think it's
> fundamentally flawed. From what I've seen (so far) it pops up far too
> often
> and it's likely to create an environment where "Joe user" will blindly
> start
> pressing "Ok / Allow" to everything or just shut it off altogether. This
> is
> seen now with a lot of virus/malware infections. A lot of the time the
> user
> is actually prompted in IE, or has to physically double-click and
> install/run something, before getting infected.
>
> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>> So you basically agree that it's not the OS that is faulty, it's bad
>> practices and the fact that Windows is so friendly to apps that
>> themselves are faulty. I'm always hearing people complain that
>> Windows doesn't do this or that natively, and one of those things is
>> malware protection. If Windows did all those things, MS would be hit
>> with more anti-trust litigation than they already have been. I would
>> think that even making Windows do some kind of quality control of
>> apps would have similar results.
>>
>> As for the default admin account, I'm of two minds. Especially during
>> initial setup, admin permissions are frequently required. I certainly
>> wouldn't want the default to be a limited user account, but that's me
>> -- I run as an admin all the time and don't have any resulting
>> problems because I'm diligent about other good practices. With the
>> way I use Windows, it would be a royal PITA to be switching back &
>> forth. Only thing I can think of is to make a very strong,
>> in-your-face greeting that would push you to create a limited user
>> account and explain in detail why this is good practice, but not
>> force it.
>>
>
>
>

July 3rd 07, 05:32 AM

I think we're sort of on the same wave length now. Windows can be a secure
OS when you have the proper mind-set/practices, but your average user does
not. And you can't fault them for that as they just want a "box" that
works, so ultimately it's Windows/MS's responsibility to provide a
safe/secure environment.

And you're right, switching back and forth is a PITA. MS should have made
better use of and a more robust "runas" feature. The OS/applications also
needs to be more limited account friendly too. Things have improved
considerably but there is still room for improvment; games come to mind, as
there shouldn't be any reason you need to run as admin to play a game.

As to what MS can do? An "in-your-face" greeting with a
tutorial/explaination about admin vs limited accounts would be a good idea.
It liekly wouldn't solve all the problems but I'm sure it would help. UAC
(in Vista) is a step in the right direction although I think it's
fundamentally flawed. From what I've seen (so far) it pops up far too often
and it's likely to create an environment where "Joe user" will blindly start
pressing "Ok / Allow" to everything or just shut it off altogether. This is
seen now with a lot of virus/malware infections. A lot of the time the user
is actually prompted in IE, or has to physically double-click and
install/run something, before getting infected.

Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> So you basically agree that it's not the OS that is faulty, it's bad
> practices and the fact that Windows is so friendly to apps that
> themselves are faulty. I'm always hearing people complain that
> Windows doesn't do this or that natively, and one of those things is
> malware protection. If Windows did all those things, MS would be hit
> with more anti-trust litigation than they already have been. I would
> think that even making Windows do some kind of quality control of
> apps would have similar results.
>
> As for the default admin account, I'm of two minds. Especially during
> initial setup, admin permissions are frequently required. I certainly
> wouldn't want the default to be a limited user account, but that's me
> -- I run as an admin all the time and don't have any resulting
> problems because I'm diligent about other good practices. With the
> way I use Windows, it would be a royal PITA to be switching back &
> forth. Only thing I can think of is to make a very strong,
> in-your-face greeting that would push you to create a limited user
> account and explain in detail why this is good practice, but not
> force it.
>

M.I.5¾

July 3rd 07, 07:59 AM

"Desperateparents" > wrote in
message ...
> We have 3 PC's at home. We each have a copy of the XP CD, all purchased
> and
> real.
>
> My 12 year old has had problems requiring frequent reinstall's etc. I
> suspect she gets nasty files via chat.
>
> Anyway. She now gets a message saying the CD has been used too many times
> and cannot be used again. Why? We paid for it?
>
> How do I fix this, or rather how does Microsoft fix this. My 12 year old's
> immediate reaction was "Why do we use this platform if they cheat us out
> of
> our software?".
>

the message is just scare tactics.

You can reactivate by telephone. they will give you a reactivation code.

In future why not by pass the whole problem. Once you have successfully
reinstalled, navigate to the C:\windows\system32 folder. Make a copy of the
two files wpa.dbl and wpa.bak onto some suitable media (not the hard disk).
Next time you have to reinstall windows, and you get the usual 28 days to
activate. Instead, just boot into safe mode, navigate to the
C:\windows\system32 folder and rename wpa.dbl to wpabak.dbl and wpa.bak to
wpabak.bak (if it exists). Now copy your two carefully saved files in their
place. Reboot, and you have an activated windows.

M.I.5¾

July 3rd 07, 08:05 AM

"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
...
> So you basically agree that it's not the OS that is faulty, it's bad
> practices and the fact that Windows is so friendly to apps that themselves
> are faulty. I'm always hearing people complain that Windows doesn't do
> this or that natively, and one of those things is malware protection. If
> Windows did all those things, MS would be hit with more anti-trust
> litigation than they already have been. I would think that even making
> Windows do some kind of quality control of apps would have similar
> results.
>
> As for the default admin account, I'm of two minds. Especially during
> initial setup, admin permissions are frequently required. I certainly
> wouldn't want the default to be a limited user account, but that's me -- I
> run as an admin all the time and don't have any resulting problems because
> I'm diligent about other good practices. With the way I use Windows, it
> would be a royal PITA to be switching back & forth. Only thing I can think
> of is to make a very strong, in-your-face greeting that would push you to
> create a limited user account and explain in detail why this is good
> practice, but not force it.
>

I would agree that running as an admin account is not a good thing to do.
Unfortunately, you don't have a great deal of option. Many applications are
written in a way that they won't run in anything other than an administrator
account. Have you any idea how many applications make an alteration to the
registry when starting up and another when closing down? This can only
happen when in administrator mode.

M.I.5¾

July 3rd 07, 08:08 AM

"Desperateparents" > wrote in
message ...
> Thanks to Martin and LV. I appreciate your quick and accurate advice.
>
> To NL. You preach and rant and then say you hate parents who do that.
> Mirror
> time.
>
> As to your supposed reply. All virus, spyware detection and firewall
> software is current and up to date. Always. Yours?
>
> It's a she and she only uses Microsoft Messenger and does not download
> other
> files on her PC. If she wants that she does it on my PC with my
> supervision
> and agreement. So I suspect any nasties come through a Microsoft product.
>

The best thing you can do with Microsoft Messenger, is to completely disable
it. It is a poor application which easily allows the propagation of
malware.

Gary S. Terhune

July 3rd 07, 10:39 AM

And that's not really Windows' fault, is it? Blame the apps' developers.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"M.I.5¾" > wrote in message
...
>
> I would agree that running as an admin account is not a good thing to do.
> Unfortunately, you don't have a great deal of option. Many applications
> are written in a way that they won't run in anything other than an
> administrator account. Have you any idea how many applications make an
> alteration to the registry when starting up and another when closing down?
> This can only happen when in administrator mode.
>
>

July 3rd 07, 11:50 PM

You too eh? UAC is a pain in the butt. LOL

Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> Enough for now, except to mention that UAC caused me to reboot to
> WinXP within 20 minutes of trying Vista. I've tried it a couple of
> times more, trying to wrap my head around it and learn to work with
> it, but...
>
> I suppose there's a way to totally disable UAC, but I get so
> disgusted that I lose patience and dump the whole project.
>
>
> "GO" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I think we're sort of on the same wave length now. Windows can be a
>> secure OS when you have the proper mind-set/practices, but your
>> average user does not. And you can't fault them for that as they
>> just want a "box" that works, so ultimately it's Windows/MS's
>> responsibility to provide a safe/secure environment.
>>
>> And you're right, switching back and forth is a PITA. MS should
>> have made better use of and a more robust "runas" feature. The
>> OS/applications also needs to be more limited account friendly too.
>> Things have improved considerably but there is still room for
>> improvment; games come to mind, as
>> there shouldn't be any reason you need to run as admin to play a
>> game.
>>
>> As to what MS can do? An "in-your-face" greeting with a
>> tutorial/explaination about admin vs limited accounts would be a good
>> idea.
>> It liekly wouldn't solve all the problems but I'm sure it would
>> help. UAC (in Vista) is a step in the right direction although I
>> think it's fundamentally flawed. From what I've seen (so far) it
>> pops up far too often
>> and it's likely to create an environment where "Joe user" will
>> blindly start
>> pressing "Ok / Allow" to everything or just shut it off altogether.
>> This is
>> seen now with a lot of virus/malware infections. A lot of the time
>> the user
>> is actually prompted in IE, or has to physically double-click and
>> install/run something, before getting infected.
>>
>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>>> So you basically agree that it's not the OS that is faulty, it's bad
>>> practices and the fact that Windows is so friendly to apps that
>>> themselves are faulty. I'm always hearing people complain that
>>> Windows doesn't do this or that natively, and one of those things is
>>> malware protection. If Windows did all those things, MS would be hit
>>> with more anti-trust litigation than they already have been. I would
>>> think that even making Windows do some kind of quality control of
>>> apps would have similar results.
>>>
>>> As for the default admin account, I'm of two minds. Especially
>>> during initial setup, admin permissions are frequently required. I
>>> certainly wouldn't want the default to be a limited user account,
>>> but that's me -- I run as an admin all the time and don't have any
>>> resulting problems because I'm diligent about other good practices.
>>> With the way I use Windows, it would be a royal PITA to be
>>> switching back & forth. Only thing I can think of is to make a very
>>> strong, in-your-face greeting that would push you to create a
>>> limited user account and explain in detail why this is good
>>> practice, but not force it.

M.I.5¾

July 4th 07, 07:40 AM

"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
...
> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS-MVP Shell/User
> www.grystmill.com
>
> "M.I.5¾" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I would agree that running as an admin account is not a good thing to do.
>> Unfortunately, you don't have a great deal of option. Many applications
>> are written in a way that they won't run in anything other than an
>> administrator account. Have you any idea how many applications make an
>> alteration to the registry when starting up and another when closing
>> down? This can only happen when in administrator mode.
>>
> And that's not really Windows' fault, is it? Blame the apps' developers.
>

It doesn't matter whose fault it is, it's a reality.

Top posting corrected.

Gary S. Terhune

July 4th 07, 06:04 PM

You must have come in late, since the original discussion between GO and
myself specifically started with a "blame Windows" tenor, which I disputed.
"Blame" is indeed the topic of discussion, whether you consider it
irrelevant or not.

Bottom posting corrected.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"M.I.5¾" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> ...
>> --
>> Gary S. Terhune
>> MS-MVP Shell/User
>> www.grystmill.com
>>
>> "M.I.5¾" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> I would agree that running as an admin account is not a good thing to
>>> do. Unfortunately, you don't have a great deal of option. Many
>>> applications are written in a way that they won't run in anything other
>>> than an administrator account. Have you any idea how many applications
>>> make an alteration to the registry when starting up and another when
>>> closing down? This can only happen when in administrator mode.
>>>
>> And that's not really Windows' fault, is it? Blame the apps' developers.
>>
>
> It doesn't matter whose fault it is, it's a reality.
>
> Top posting corrected.
>
>