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 540643
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[9]: Not Ringing My Bell So Far
by Morgan on Wed 31st Oct 2012 04:11 UTC in reply to "RE[8]: Not Ringing My Bell So Far"
Morgan
Member since:
2005-06-29

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

HappyGod Member since:
2005-10-19

Then you should have clarified that at the outset.


No, I shouldn't have. I don't have to explicitly state my position on everything on the off chance someone may misinterpret what I'm saying. The onus in on you to make sure you have a thorough understanding before you get on your high horse, and hurl abuse at people.

Whether or not piracy can cause some upgrade issues on hackintosh machines does not make the issues I raised any more likely that they were caused by piracy.

There is no possible way that piracy could have contributed to a screen resolution issue AFTER INSTALLATION.

The is no possible way that piracy could have contributed to my WMC key taking 3 days, WHICH ISN'T EVEN AN EVENT TAKING PLACE ON MY PC.

There is no possible way that piracy could have contributed to me not being able to select the full upgrade cause I had WMC installed, since the installation routine actually had website links explaining this scenario! THIS IS CLEARLY BY DESIGN.

And so on.

You are simply wrong. Accept it.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

There was no abuse on my part. In fact, you threw all of the insulting comments, not me. I called your methods bullshit, yes, but that was not an attack, merely an observation.

The Hackintosh comment was an example of how a hacked OS is prone to upgrade issues no matter the vendor. It is perfectly relevant, given that if someone tried to upgrade a hacked Lion install to legit Mountain Lion, they would likely run into a lot of issues from it. Peruse the darker side of the Internet and in the descriptions of hacked Windows 7 ISOs you'll invariably see instructions that tell you how to avoid broken activation when doing OS updates. It's standard operating procedure for pirated software, and one would think that since you've pirated Windows from version 98 up (your words), you would know this.

You are simply wrong. Accept it.


I don't have to accept anything you say, thank you very much. I stand behind my opinion that your methodology is flawed. In any test, even if the outcome is exactly the same, the flawed method should never take precedence over the correct method. This is taught in grade school science, and as you claim to be a college student I would think it would be ingrained in you by now.

Obviously we will never come to a conclusion here if you keep avoiding the issue that your methodology is flawed and instead focus on the results, which is not the issue at all.

One last time, because I'm done here: I'm pretty sure your results would be consistent with the outcome from using a legitimate upgrade path. However, to claim with 100% certainty that a hacked OS never, in any way possible, contributed to those results is illogical and goes against the most basic scientific principles.

Reply Parent Score: 3

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

He is not wrong.

At the end of the day you were running the upgrade assistant on an hacked Windows. The hacked version of Windows is no viable target that Microsoft should test their upgrade assistant against.

In anycase, what you were doing was immoral. You were trying to get your "el cheapo" version, by trying to upgrade a license you never paid for in the first place, and then you had a little cry.

Reply Parent Score: 2