Microsoft validation problem.

[Oleg Volk]

My XP box had a defective mnotherboard. I had to reinstall Windows after replacing the part. I just tried todown load RAW Thumbnailer to view digital camera images directly in finder but got this message:

Validation Not Completed: Expired Validation Code


   Why did it not validate?


There are several reasons why validation may not have succeeded.

         o An expired version of the Windows Genuine Advantage
           Validation Tool was detected on your computer. Please use
           the alternate validation method to restart the validation
           process and download a new version of the tool.


         o You attempted to validate using the alternate validation
           method using an expired hash code. Please restart the
           validation process to obtain a new hash code

-------------------------------------------------------
I am not sure what they are talking about. Could you explain?

[jefnvk]

Windows uses a code system to determine when something needs to be revalidated.  Each part of hardware is assigned a point value, and when enough point values change, Windows recognizes that as a new computer.  It probably thinks you are trying to install the same Windows on a different computer.

Call the number that should be listed there somewhere, and tell them you just replaced the mobo.  They'll get you activated.

[Oleg Volk]

Thanks. I was able to get the process to work with IE (instead of Firefox)...

[RadioFreeSeaLab]

Ah, Windows.

[garrettwc]

Thanks. I was able to get the process to work with IE (instead of Firefox)...

Ah, Windows.

Yeah, that federal anti-trust ruling really showed them didn't it.

[mtnbkr]

There was no monopoly to bust.  We've always had choices.  You might not have liked them, but Windows has never been the only game in town.  

Linux
MacOS
BeOS (ok, very bit player)
various flavors of commercial Unix OS
etc.

I've used Linux at home and work without having to dual boot.  I've used BeOS.  I've used Solaris at work.  

I use Windows 2000 Pro because it offers the features I want, not because I'm forced into using it.

Sorry, I thought the whole anti-trust thing was a waste of time and money.

Chris

[Guest]

On at least two occasions that I know of, Microsoft has been caught committing contract law violations in order to kill off competing operating systems "in the cradle".  They fully killed one, crippled another.

The first instance involved DR-DOS, a semi-clone of MS-DOS but with a different code base, tracing it's multi-tasking back to Concurrent DOS and before that Concurrent CP/M and MP/M.  In the late 80s this was hot stuff.  Microsoft deliberately set up the early Windows 3.1x series so that it wouldn't load on top of it, which was really fraud against their customers but also hurt the makers of DR-DOS.  Understand that this wasn't a "deliberate incompatibility" deep in the code - rather Windows specifically looked for DR-DOS and upon encountering it choked hard.  It took a while but they did finally pay millions (I forget the dollar amount but it was big) for this to Novell which later bought the rights to DR-DOS.

The second concerned Sun's JAVA.  Microsoft, in violation of their license with Sun, produced a "JAVA for Windows" (and associated development tools) that was customized to such a degree that software developed for it wouldn't work on anything else (Sun Unix systems, Macs, etc.).  Sun specified interoperability in their contract because that's what they were aiming for.  This one "cost" MS over $200mil but the delay and obfuscation they put on JAVA was almost certainly worth it to them.

These aren't the only evil things MS has done over the years but they're noteworthy in that they are probably the two worst AND each was perpetrated to preserve dominance in operating systems.

[mtnbkr]

Microsoft deliberately set up the early Windows 3.1x series so that it wouldn't load on top of it, which was really fraud against their customers but also hurt the makers of DR-DOS.  Understand that this wasn't a "deliberate incompatibility" deep in the code - rather Windows specifically looked for DR-DOS and upon encountering it choked hard.  It took a while but they did finally pay millions (I forget the dollar amount but it was big) for this to Novell which later bought the rights to DR-DOS.

Sorry, I don't consider that unfair or wrong.  So one company's product isn't compatible with another's?  You're not forced to use one or the other unless you consider desire for a specific feature set to be force.  Microsoft is under no obligation to maintain compatibility with any other company's systems.  If you want compatibility, choose another OS (and if it came to that, I would very quickly).  

I've been working in IT for nearly 11 years now.  I've been a LAN administrator, sysadmin, and network engineer during that time.  Not once has MS been the only solution for a given problem.  Sometimes MS was the easier solution, but it was never the only one, not even for the desktop.  The only time I used MS products in any large amount was when I was a LAN Admin.  We rolled out WinNT for the desktops and a few servers.  Could we have used Unix?  Sure, every bit of software we needed was available on various Unix platforms.  In fact, some of my users did use Unix either on their desktop or remotely via Humingbird Exceed (remote X product).  Some even used Linux with VMWare later on (it wasn't available when we first started).  We went with Windows because it was easier to deploy and gave us flexibility.  

The second concerned Sun's JAVA.  Microsoft, in violation of their license

I'll give you that one.  Anytime a company violates a contract, they should be punished.  

Chris

[K Frame]

Yeah, but any way you look at it, Bill Gates is still worse than Hitler...

[Vodka7]

This is the real key:

"         o An expired version of the Windows Genuine Advantage
           Validation Tool was detected on your computer. Please use
           the alternate validation method to restart the validation
           process and download a new version of the tool."

You can use the *alternate validation method* just fine in FireFox.  Instead of using some ActiveX plugin IE voodoo magic, they also have a simple windows executable you can download in any browser and run from your hard drive.

They may be evil, but they have learned something.

[Guest]

mtnbkr: no, you're refusing to see what happened.

The *contract* between the end user and MS didn't *require* Windows to be run on top of MS-DOS.  

Do you follow that?

The reality is, Windows DID run OK on DR-DOS.  This was not an "incompatibility".

It was sabotage.  MS put in code designed to do only ONE thing: identify if DR-DOS was present and if it was, shut down the installation.  

You cannot sell me software that has a "death trigger" built in that kicks off if it sees me running a competitor's product.  There is ONLY one word for that, and the word is sabotage.

We know it wasn't a combatibility thing for several reasons:

* Early windows in the 3.0 series ran fine on top of DR-DOS.

* Early Win3.1x series would install onto DR-DOS but would alert with a warning that it might not work.  It worked just fine.  Once people realized that and read so in magazines, later Win3.1x series shipped that had the "death code" inside.

* When hackers found and removed the "death code" all versions of Win3x ran just fine on DR-DOS.  The "death code" was fully de-compiled and the results published publicly.

Again: don't you dare talk to me about "incompatibilities" when the reality was sabotage.

[mtnbkr]

I see very clearly what happened.  However, I don't think it's all that important.  Users had a choice.  Use DR-DOS or use Windows with MS-DOS.  Microsoft decided they only wanted Windows to be used with MS-DOS.  Sure, it's a management decision, but it's their decision to make since it's their product.  Don't like it?  Don't buy their products.  There were alternatives such as GeOS, Amiga, Apple, OS/2, etc.  Nowadays, there's Linux, Apple, xBSD, etc.

There should be a law, right?  So much for Freedom.  

Chris

[Guest]

So you like the idea of bigger companies killing off smaller competitors by sabotaging their own products so that *customers* are punished if they buy the smaller company's products?  Therefore to the avoid the punishment the customers don't buy the smaller company's product?

And you call that "freedom"?

I call it "intentional vandalism".  And eventually the courts did too.

Understand: the code that caused Windows to choke on seeing DR-DOS was thoroughly analyzed.  There was no other purpose for that code other than sabotage and vandalism.

Let's see now: say you're a cancer patient and Merik Pharmaceuticals has the best treatment drug.  But that drug is set up to poison you if it detects other medicines by another competing drug manufacturer.  So what, just don't buy Merik?  

Or sue them for intentional poisoning?

[Guest]

Do you understand that in order to pull this stunt off, MS had to violate contract law with the buyers of Windows?  When you buy software, you are supposed to be reasonably sure that the software doesn't have DELIBERATE defects (otherwise known as sabotage, vandalism, etc.).

You do NOT want to live in a world in which deliberate product sabotage is used to control consumer behavior.  That's not "freedom", it's "utter lawlessness" because even the most radically pro-freedom Anarcho-Capitalist believes in the sanctity of contract law.

[mtnbkr]

Therefore to the avoid the punishment the customers don't buy the smaller company's product?

What punishment?  There was no requirement to buy Windows 3.1.  They could stick with Win3.0 or not use Windows at all.  If MS wants you to run a pure MS system in order to get the benefits of Windows, that's their choice because it's their product.  If you want the benefits of Windows, you run it the way they want you to, or you find other solutions (Apple, GEOS, Amiga, OS/2, etc).  It's one of the reasons I went with other platforms at varying times in the past (Apple, OS/2, and Linux).  What is it about computer hobbyists that make them think that just because they WANT something, it must be true.

And eventually the courts did too.

The courts say a lot of things, but that doesn't make them right.  Look at the various anti-2nd arguments that the courts have upheld.

Let's see now: say you're a cancer patient and Merik Pharmaceuticals has the best treatment drug.  But that drug is set up to poison you if it detects other medicines by another competing drug manufacturer.  So what, just don't buy Merik?

Your analogy doesn't work.  First, MS doesn't own the best product in any category.  Second, Win3.1 didn't break anything, it simply wouldn't work in the presence of DR-DOS.  A better medical analogy is the average quality drug becoming a placebo in the presence of other, competing, drugs.  

Do you understand that in order to pull this stunt off, MS had to violate contract law with the buyers of Windows?  When you buy software, you are supposed to be reasonably sure that the software doesn't have DELIBERATE defects (otherwise known as sabotage, vandalism, etc.).

It's been a long time since I've read one, but I don't recall EULAs guaranteeing any functionality.  Short of MS claiming compatability with DR-DOS and THEN not delivering (prior versions not evidence of future versions' intended interroperability), I don't see how there's any contract between users and MS regarding the platform Windows would support.

Consumers have always been free to choose alternatives if a product didn't meet their needs.

Chris

[K Frame]

"It's been a long time since I've read one, but I don't recall EULAs guaranteeing any functionality."

I read one recently, for a Microsoft product.

They do NOT guarantee functionality.

[jefnvk]

I'm gonna have to go with mtnbkr on the DR-DOS thing.  No one is forcing you to run Windows, which is what bugs me about most of these price-fixing suits and such against them.

If you paid well more than what you should have, and got a product that was known to not work in the way you wanted it to work, that is your own fault.

Saying that MS should have made 3.1 work with DR-DOS is like saying that Ford should make their cars so you can take any part off and put in a GM one, and still have it work.

The Java thing, yeah, that was a problem.  Making their code not work with competitors stuff is not a problem.  As mtnbkr said, and I concur, I can't quite get this idea that computer people have that if something isn't their way, sue until it is.

As for the RealPlayer thing, if Real had a player that didn't suck, it would probably compete with Windows.

[Guest]

I am aware that software EULAs don't guarantee functionality, Microsoft's or any others.

However, that doesn't imply a right to deliberately vandalize their own software.

I don't understand why y'all can't see the issue.  Now we have Jefnvk also implying that the incompatibility is accidental.  How many times can I say it?  It was deliberate, not accidental.  They wrote a snippet of code whose SOLE purpose was to cripple the user's ability to use a product they bought a legal license for under legal conditions and within the scope of the license they bought, purely on a marketing whim on MS's part.

How anybody could excuse that is completely beyond me.

[K Frame]

"However, that doesn't imply a right to deliberately vandalize their own software."

VANDALIZE?

You need a session with the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language...

"To destroy or deface (public or private property) willfully or maliciously."

Microsoft neither destroyed nor defaced public or private property. Until Microsoft sells that software to a third party (you or me), it is THEIRS to do with as they wish, to code as they wish, to design as they wish, and to market as they wish.

"They wrote a snippet of code whose SOLE purpose was to cripple the user's ability to use a product they bought a legal license for under legal conditions and within the scope of the license they bought, purely on a marketing whim on MS's part."

Yes, yes they did. See my above statement.

Again, no one is, has, or will in our lifetime force you to purchase Microsoft products. That they've become the dominant, but by no means only, player in the market means what? That they were smarter, faster, and better than their competitors in the most important field of all -- marketing. There's absolutely no guarantee that the technologically better product will win.

All of this has the distinctive, ugly smell of capitalism.

We need lots of laws and lawsuits to stop this immediately! To the legislative houses and law courts!

[jefnvk]

Actually, if you read my post:

Making their code not work with competitors stuff is not a problem.