Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 30th Oct 2012 18:10 UTC
Windows Steve Ballmer has just announced that in the first three days of being on sale, more than 4 million people have bought the Windows 8 upgrade. This doesn't count OEM installations or Microsoft's own Surface - just individual upgrades. Definitely a promising start for Windows 8, but then, these are most likely enthusiasts (I'm one of those four million), so we still don't know a whole lot. I'm patiently waiting for the response from regular consumers.
Thread beginning with comment 540637
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Not Ringing My Bell So Far
by Morgan on Wed 31st Oct 2012 03:51 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Not Ringing My Bell So Far"
Member since:

I attributed those things to you because they can be inferred by previous things that you said. For example you said:

"your words were it didn't work, which was a direct result of using a pirated copy".

This means that you believe the first issue I raised was a result of using a pirated copy.

No, read again what you said, in full:

"This made me a bit nervous as I was running a pirate version of Win7. And ... it didn't work.

You knew you were running a pirated version of Windows, and it made you nervous about attempting an upgrade. So you were the first one to attribute failure directly to running hacked software, not me. You tried to take it back and then turn it around on me, but to do so is quite disingenuous.

If this is the case then you must logically believe that anyone else having this problem must also be running a pirated copy.

Not at all; that is obviously the way you think but I tend to take all the facts into consideration. In your specific case it caused an issue, as you said. My point has been and still is that you are starting with a corrupt data set for your experiment, and even if the rest of your results are replicated elsewhere, your test itself is suspect.

When did I admit that it caused an issue?, and when did I deny it? Please paste the text.

No problem, bold text in these quotes is my analysis, the rest is you:

"This made me a bit nervous" - you suspected it would be a problem - "as I was running a pirate version of Win7. And ... it didn't work." - and your suspicion was correct.

"Precisely none of the issues I encountered were the result of the fact that my copy was pirated." - Flat out denial of what you stated above.

Frankly, I think that you read the first paragraph of my post, got annoyed that I pirated some software, and shot off at the mouth. And you've been trying unsuccessfully to make your position tenable since then.

No, as I've stated four times now, I think your methodology is flawed. Perhaps the pirated software caused more than just the first issue, perhaps it caused none, perhaps it caused all of them. The fact that you ran the experiment with a known suspect data set makes it invalid, period.

Bottom line. None of my issues; I repeat NONE of my issues were caused by piracy.

There's simply no way to say that with 100% certainty, even if we completely ignore your first issue. To say otherwise is ludicrous. Re-run the experiment with a legal copy of Windows 7, and no matter the outcome, even if the first issue happens again, I will believe every word of it.

They are all a result of a very crap upgrade implementation by Microsoft

There's a very good chance you are right, but we'll never know for sure unless you conduct a proper test using legitimate installs.

Reply Parent Score: 3

HappyGod Member since:

I suspected it might be a problem because I could be caught with a pirate copy of Windows.

I was afraid of being fined. Not that it wouldn't work.

And I can say for certain that none of the issues were caused by piracy because, if you read the issues, it makes absolutely no sense at all that they would be!

"Upgrade with programs" limited because WMC?
Screen resolution problem?
PayPal option crashing?
WMC product key delayed for 3 days?

How could any of these problem possibly be linked to piracy? Seriously, how?

Reply Parent Score: 1

Morgan Member since:

I suspected it might be a problem because I could be caught with a pirate copy of Windows.

I was afraid of being fined. Not that it wouldn't work.

Then you should have clarified that at the outset. The way you worded it, you suspected the upgrade would fail due to running a pirated copy and then it failed. I'll take you at your word that that is what you really meant all along, but you really should have said so outright instead of dragging this out.

How could any of these problem possibly be linked to piracy? Seriously, how?

Not necessarily the piracy itself, but the methods that might be in play to cause the install to pass activation. Those methods often alter or even delete critical system files, and if your source was from a black hat organization instead of grey hat, it's entirely possible there is a rootkit on there.

Hackintoshes run into similar issues on upgrading; often one has to move their modified kernel extensions to a safe partition before performing OS upgrades, even point releases. Then the hacked .kext files are put back in place.

Like I said before, it's likely those are separate issues. But to claim 100% certainty under your installation conditions is a logical fallacy.

Edited 2012-10-31 04:12 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

quackalist Member since:

Hmm, well I've done upgrades before with programs and data. Usually the data is fine but there always seems to be issues with programs so now I'd just do fresh installs . It's a pain mind but less of one then the other. Wish it was otherwise, but that's what I'd advise.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Morgan Member since:

I agree completely, and as I said to HappyGod I wouldn't be surprised if all of his issues are due to upgrade quirks that anyone could encounter. My sole issue is with his insistence that his test is 100% infallible despite using known hacked software.

Reply Parent Score: 2