 |
 |
| ActiveWin | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise | Career Portal | Users Online: 351 |
|
|
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Active Network |
|
ActiveMac |
|
ActiveWin |
|
ActiveXbox |
|
Careers |
|
DirectX |
|
Downloads |
|
FAQs |
|
Interviews |
|
MS Games & Hardware |
|
Reviews |
|
Support Center |
|
TopTechTips |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows Server 2003 |
|
Windows Vista |
|
Windows XP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
Apple/Mac |
|
Xbox/Xbox 360 |
|
News Search |
|
XML/RSS Newsfeeds |
|
Pocket PC Site |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows Vista |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows Server 2003 |
|
Windows XP |
|
Windows 7 |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox 360 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Xbox/Games |
|
Fable 2 |
|
|
|
Applications |
|
Windows 7 |
|
IE 8 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Microsoft Arc Mouse (Red) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Interviews |
|
Mike Swanson |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Advertise |
|
Affiliates |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
Sponsors:
Search Engine Optimisation
exterminator
lawn care
Search Engine Optimisation
Search Engine Optimization
Search Engine Marketing
PPC Management
Search Engine Optimization
Search Engine Optimisation
search engine optimisation
Cheap Web Hosting
Webanalyse
online credit card processing
Lenovo Laptops
Text Links
Business Gifts
SEO Services
SEO
Chat
Search Engine Optimization
SEO Consult
Demand Generation Software
Celebrity Autopsies
Network Software
 |
SP3 Licensing Controversy is No Controversy | |
|
||
| Time: 13:45 EST/18:45 GMT | News Source: WinInformant | Posted By: Julien Jay | ||
|
An uninformed complaint about the End User License Agreement (EULA) for Windows 2000 SP3 is making the rounds this week, spreading some mistruths about information Microsoft is allegedly collecting after you install the patch. According to the complaint, the SP3 EULA gives Microsoft the right to collect your OS version number and Product Identification number, Internet Explorer version number, version numbers of other software, and the Plug and Play ID numbers of hardware devices. This, the complaint says, is sneaky, underhanded, and any number of other adjectives you'd care to add to the list. The truth, as ever, is far less fascinating. First, this information is passed to Windows Update so that the service can provide the correct product updates for your individual system. But the EULA clearly states that this information is not saved, or passed along to Microsoft. It's just collected for an obvious (and desirable) reason. "Windows Update does not collect your name, address, e-mail address, or any other form of personally identifiable information," the EULA reads. "The configuration information collected is used only for the period of time that you are visiting the site, and is not saved." | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying Comments 1 through 14 of 14 |
The time now is
3:09:08 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By RMD (1844 Posts) at 8/4/2002 3:16:42 PM |
|
Anybody wanna take any bets on whether or not Slashdot actually posts this follow up article?
I don't think I can remember Slashdot EVER posting anything that contradicted an anti-Microsoft article they had previously posted. After all, Slashdot is about Microsoft MISinformation, not information. They have an agenda to push, and journalistic integrity is not in their lexicon. |
| #2 By mrhicks (6 Posts) at 8/4/2002 3:34:43 PM |
|
It seems to me that Microsoft can design a system that doesn't require any data to be sent to Microsoft ( via windows update ) for the system to work. There is no stead fast requirement that in order for the Windows Update to work properly it must transmit data. All necessary requirements can be store on the remote PC then tested at the remote machine. This type of system is in place for other software packages.
This forum ( AvtiveWin ) is a very much pro Microsoft as Slashdot is anti Microsoft. The actual truth lies somewhere in between. If you think that Microsoft doesn't store nor use data it collects then you are very naive individual. "But the EULA clearly states that this information is not saved, or passed along to Microsoft." Well this is true since once it is transmitted to Windows Update it is already at Microsoft so why does it need to be transferred anywhere. ActiveWin members talk about Slashdot disseminating MISinformation, but ActiveWin members are the polar complement of Slashdot. |
| #3 By mOOzilla (1009 Posts) at 8/4/2002 3:49:41 PM |
|
I never run windows update so *yawn*, i never read EULAs either :) Im a software dev not a lawyer. Its their job.
Windows update needs machine parameters so it can determine what Q files to make available. Duh, no conspiracy here, nothing to see, move along. I dont really care what they stick in the EULAs, its only lately that people are reading these (usually in response to slashdot style stories etc), but usually who cares. Its not written for end users, its written for corporate lawyers, hence its in gobbldygook. The application, lsass.exe, generated an application error The error occurred on 08/02/2002 @ 18:46:13.200 The exception generated was c0000005 at address 7857A61B (LsaIFreeReturnBuffer) Any1 get this on sp3? I get it when changing registry config settings sometimes.. weird. Only on sp3 (and on a fresh installed box). This post was edited by mOOzilla on Sunday, August 04, 2002 at 15:54. |
| #4 By fusewerx (71 Posts) at 8/4/2002 3:52:20 PM |
|
Here we go.
Mr. Hicks, I think you have the wrong idea here. MS simply would not store this information. Can you imagine the hell they'd be put through if they did store this info? As for the system requirements, it is done this way for data normality and scalability. Rather than push the metadata of the update catalog every time an update is requested (quite a lot of metadata, mind you) it instead opts for the much smaller amount of metadata about the end user's software and hardware. This allows MS to update the catalog and WU will just work. Other packages aren't Windows. Yes, RedHat (and other *nix OSs) have an update feature that doesn't send metadata with each update request, but instead you have to register (and provide quite a bit of system information which IS stored) to take advantage of that update feature of those OSs. In regards to MS's handling of the data: The information is transmitted to Windows Update, of course. Windows Update is NOT Microsoft. MS is a big beast, and unless you honestly believe they're capturing all network traffic going across their border routers for all their online properties, there is simply no way they're storing all the information specific to each system accessing WU. Storing and using the information? No. As I said above, they would be doing themselves a grave disservice if they were actually storing and somehow UTILIZING this information. As for Slashdot's failure to post this follow up, it's not just Slashdot. I sent a similar message to Bugtraq whose moderator summarily rejected my post without a comment. One more thing: ActiveWin members are not necessarily the "polar complement" of /. users. The prototypical MS user's behaviors simply do not compare with the prototypical behavior of a Linux advocate. Many ActiveWin users utilize both OSs in their homes or businesses; further to that, many ActiveWin users aren't MS totalitarians; rather, they're "whatever works for the price I'm willing to pay" advocates, and if that means a Win32 port of a Linux package, FreeBSD, or PHP against Win32 MySQL (whatever), the solution that fits is the solution that will be implemented. Don't apply a sweeping generalization without polling the masses to determine if your stereotype actually fits. |
| #5 By ekapshi (410 Posts) at 8/4/2002 4:48:11 PM |
|
mOOzilla,
Rewrite your problem as a proper bug report (list the exact registry keys you changed, and to what, exact steps on how to reproduce the problem, the hardware you were running it on, any special services which were on/off), and i'll forward it to a Microsoft employee. E-mail it to me at pauld(at)activewin(dot)com. |
| #6 By mOOzilla (1009 Posts) at 8/4/2002 5:01:07 PM |
|
The 2 keys I changed where...
User Key: [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer] Value Name: DesktopProcess Data Type: REG_DWORD (DWORD Value) Value Data: (1 = Separate Process, 0 = Default) I set this to 1 (Seperate Process). and... System Key: [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager Memory Management] Value Name: DisablePagingExecutive Data Type: REG_DWORD (DWORD Value) Value Data: (0 = default, 1 = disable system paging) I set this to 1 (Disable system paging) Repro scenario.. 0. Administrator login session on console. 1. Regedit the above 2 keys to the appropriate values 2. Restart system for keys to be effective 3. Logon screen displayed 4. LSASS reported error... SHUTDOWN dialog with timer of 30 or 60 seconds enabled unable to log in as LSASS failed. 5. Rebooted machine 6. Was able to log back in 7. Check event log for the following event... The application, lsass.exe, generated an application error The error occurred on 08/02/2002 @ 18:46:13.200 The exception generated was c0000005 at address 7857A61B (LsaIFreeReturnBuffer) I did see it before that after an install of sp3 (no prior Q files installed, fresh box). But I had a disk error in the system event log with an fail. Then this caused the CompareString AV in MFC40 I think (cant remember this one too well as I put this down to a disk read error - caused by the crappy HiPoint raid controllers). I havent tried to reproduce it as it seems ok for now, even when I changed the LargePageMinimum for the AMD CPU Q fix. I found it strange as I have never ever seen this on the base OS, sp1 nor sp2. Just sp3. Possibly a rare bug (timing issue with memory reads and clearing the reference - which obviously was not allocated to that process as it thought) but still stood out cuz LSASS is obviously critical to enable login to a box :) It may not even be related to those registry keys, but thats what I modified. Im running Windows 2000 Advanced Server MSDN license. 768 Meg ram 5 HDs (no partitions) (Primary master hipoint controller is system boot with NTLDR, Secondary master hipoint controller is system page file set to over 1150mb min and max so no resizing of page file) 2.33 Hipoint drivers for RCM and raid controller device. AMD Athlon 1122 mhz. VIA chipset (unfortunately) KT7ARAID motherboard. These Windows 2000 services are started: Alerter COM+ Event System DHCP Client DNS Client Event Log Logical Disk Manager Network Connections Plug and Play Protected Storage Remote Procedure Call (RPC) Removable Storage Security Accounts Manager System Event Notification Windows Management Instrumentation Driver Extensions Workstation Alot are set to disabled, WMI i have set to Manual to allow MMC functionality etc. (IPSEC is set to disabled - not sure if how much that would affect LSASS) This post was edited by mOOzilla on Sunday, August 04, 2002 at 17:11. |
| #7 By RMD (1844 Posts) at 8/4/2002 5:12:22 PM |
|
#2 - This forum may be more pro-Microsoft than anit-Microsoft, but the site is not. ActiveWin posts the good and the bad, and we comment on it.
Slashdot posts only the bad (as far as MS is concered), and the forums there then follow up with more MS bashing. Personally, I'm happy to defend what I believe in, and am equally happy to change my opinion if you provide me with evidence to the contrary. ActiveWin provides me with both sides (for the most part), Slashdot does not. That's the difference. |
| #8 By mOOzilla (1009 Posts) at 8/4/2002 5:13:45 PM |
|
first post :)
JK, slashdot is like the Sunday newspapers, sensationilism. |
| #9 By bluesky (161 Posts) at 8/4/2002 6:21:49 PM |
|
Why even care about Slashdot? The website doesn't take itself that seriously to call what it's doing journalism, and most of their posted topics have nothing to do with Microsoft. |
| #10 By RMD (1844 Posts) at 8/4/2002 6:38:42 PM |
|
#9 - Well, rarely a day goes by when there isn't an anti-Microsoft post there.
It is also the number one place where "techies" get their information. In other words, Slashdot is to tech-news what Rush Limbaugh is to political news. Both are irresponsible, often knowingly deceive their audiences, and are almost never checked. I even invented a game where you go to any random Slashdot news post (no matter the subject), go to the forum for that post, and search for something about Microsoft. 9 times out of 10, as long as you flatten the posts (so you see most of them), you will get a hit, which equals a point. You use the ratio of searches over points to figure out who wins the game. You must search at least 10 articles. The lower your score, the better. It's a lot of fun... oh, and be sure to search for Microsoft derivatives, like "MS", or "M$", or "MicroSloth" or "Micro$oft", etc. Have fun kids! |
| #11 By sodablue (5245 Posts) at 8/4/2002 6:40:31 PM |
|
mrhicks - Explain to me why I should care? Why should I care that Microsoft finds out the version of Windows Media Player on my machine when I request patches?
Can I get my car fixed at the dealership without them knowing what kind of car I have? You should me an auto mechanic who can do that and I'll buy you lunch. It seems to me before getting your undies all in a bunch you should first sit down and understand exactly what your position is. The truth doesn't lie in the middle if you are wrong, which is usually the case with slashdot. This type of system is in place for other software packages. Provide a list. I know with RedHat I had to subscribe to their service, which is far more intrusive than what Microsoft does. |
| #12 By KnightHawk (284 Posts) at 8/4/2002 8:14:53 PM |
|
Ok yup I buy that explaination.. However I dont by that they are not saving any information at all. I'll almost gurantee they are saving.. at least temporarly for statistical purposes your ip or installation key (maybe actually just your productid..) date, and what was updated.
The'd actually have to at least save this for reporting \ usage anyasys reason if maybe only on a month to month basis.. as you are correct the data base would get quire large..but then again.. christ it's microsoft...what's the big deal about another 10gig database.. I'm sure it's not taking stock of anything personal.. but I sure as hell bed it's being used behind the scene for statistcal reasons.. ie.. quick quickly they could determin how many people have installed the os with the same key etc... or how many people run a particulare part id. ie.. they could see that there are 900,000 msdn versions of server out there updating and that there are only 100,000 msdn members.. etc..etc.. course it's not anything they already could not figure out.. but it would produce alot more acurate data. Just think.. at a minimum there gonna need to know howmany people are using the dam thing. |
| #13 By sodablue (5245 Posts) at 8/4/2002 9:34:18 PM |
|
Knighthawk - "However I dont by that they are not saving any information at all. I'll almost gurantee they are saving.. at least temporarly for statistical purposes your ip or installation key (maybe actually just your productid..) date, and what was updated. "
Ok. But my question is still... Why should I care? "but I sure as hell bed it's being used behind the scene for statistcal reasons" Well that's certainly no reason to care. |
| #14 By AWBobStein (946 Posts) at 8/4/2002 11:37:27 PM |
| Thanks for the comment RMD. :-) |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying Comments 1 through 14 of 14 |
The time now is
3:09:08 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
