| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
| Four million people already upgraded to Windows 8 |
| By Thom Holwerda on 2012-10-30 18:10:09 |
| 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. |
|
| RE[4]: Not Ringing My Bell So Far |
| By HappyGod on 2012-10-31 02:40:04 |
|
So let me get this straight. You think: 1. That MS deliberately rigged its upgrade assistant to not work on pirated copies that are trying to go legitimate. 2. That all the other people with that exact same issue must all be running pirated copies. 3. That because that one issue might (but isn't) be cause by piracy, that this somehow excuses all of the other bizarre issues, that are obviously not related. Interesting. |
 - Score: 1 |
| RE[5]: Not Ringing My Bell So Far |
| By Morgan on 2012-10-31 02:45:40 |
|
> So let me get this straight. You think: 1. That MS deliberately rigged its upgrade assistant to not work on pirated copies that are trying to go legitimate. I never said that, don't misquote me. It's a given that if you're running a pirated or hacked OS, when you try legitimate updates they tend to fail. This is true of Windows as well as MacOS (Hackintoshes). > 2. That all the other people with that exact same issue must all be running pirated copies. I never said that either. Again you put words in my mouth to prove your point. Not the right way to do things, dude. > 3. That because that one issue might (but isn't) be cause by piracy, that this somehow excuses all of the other bizarre issues, that are obviously not related. Once again, I never said that. You have a perverse love of misquoting people, it seems. My issue is that if your methodology is knowingly flawed (as you proudly proclaimed when you said "This made me a bit nervous as I was running a pirate version of Win7") one has to wonder about the rest of your results. I'll say it with emphasis this time so it sinks in: Run your tests on a valid Windows 7 install, or else a clean install of Windows 8, and I will take your evaluation at face value. Edited 2012-10-31 02:47 UTC |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE[6]: Not Ringing My Bell So Far |
| By HappyGod on 2012-10-31 03:26:06 |
|
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. If this is the case then you must logically believe that anyone else having this problem must also be running a pirated copy. See how I make that connection? This also implies that either you think that MS deliberately rigged it not to work on pirated systems, or you think it's just a coincidence, and I just wanted to clarify which you believed. You said: "you already admitted it caused an issue before denying it later" When did I admit that it caused an issue?, and when did I deny it? Please paste the text. 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. Bottom line. None of my issues; I repeat NONE of my issues were caused by piracy. They are all a result of a very crap upgrade implementation by Microsoft, and had you read on, you would have quickly realised that. |
| - Score: 1 |
| RE[7]: Not Ringing My Bell So Far |
| By Morgan on 2012-10-31 03:51:16 |
|
> 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. |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE[8]: Not Ringing My Bell So Far |
| By HappyGod on 2012-10-31 04:03:19 |
|
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? |
| - Score: 1 |
| Works for me |
| By Baxtor44 on 2012-10-31 04:03:32 |
| For whatever it's worth Install worked just fine for me.. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[8]: Not Ringing My Bell So Far |
| By quackalist on 2012-10-31 04:06:24 |
| 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. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE: Works for me |
| By quackalist on 2012-10-31 04:08:47 |
| Did you upgrade or do a fresh install? |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[9]: Not Ringing My Bell So Far |
| By Morgan on 2012-10-31 04:11:24 |
|
> 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 |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE: WindowzzZ |
| By BeamishBoy on 2012-10-31 04:17:43 |
|
That's a really funky version of XP you've got there. I've got an old laptop with XP and Process Explorer tells me it's running only forty processes. Perhaps yours is a special halal version of XP that searches out and destroys anything coming over the network that contradicts "the standard values of no-promiscuity, no-homophilia, no-intoxicants, no-criminality of The Quran". http://paradoxuncreated.com/Blog... Edited 2012-10-31 04:24 UTC |
| - Score: 1 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |