🚀 go-pugleaf

sp@questor.org wrote:
: Motorola Canada Ltd. has issued a stern warning to its employees to stop
: testing Microsoft Corp's. new software system Windows 95...
:    At the heart of the concern is the registration wizard, a high-tech gadget
: included with each test copy of Windows 95...

I used the wizard once. It asked for permission and lets the user bail-out
and register nothing. It is optional. It is not required, there is a
postcard for conventional reqistration also. 

I'll attempt to preempt a long and useless thread:

    MS haters will say this is further evidence of the Great MS World
    Domination Campaign.

    Some who have not used the wizard will ask what corrective action
    they should perform to ensure their security.

    Other who have used the wizard will say it is not required, do not
    use it if you are concerned.

Tony

-- 
------------------
Tony Tribelli
adtribelli@acm.org

Anthony D. Tribelli (adt@netcom.com) wrote:
: I used the wizard once. It asked for permission and lets the user bail-out
: and register nothing. It is optional. It is not required, there is a
: postcard for conventional reqistration also. 
: I'll attempt to preempt a long and useless thread:

:     MS haters will say this is further evidence of the Great MS World
:     Domination Campaign.
:     Some who have not used the wizard will ask what corrective action
:     they should perform to ensure their security.
:     Other who have used the wizard will say it is not required, do not
:     use it if you are concerned.
	
	And others just aren't sure what to think.  :(

	Acctuly, this has already been an issue on CNN...  Many many 
people are concerned that many users will not realize that there is a 
conventional method (post card) and reluctantly go ahead with the 
procceedure the registration wizard requires.  In the CNN article, it was 
analogized as a sort of corporate fine print.. or words to that effect.  
	The CNN article also showed clipped interviews from Microsoft's 
marketing manager.  He sternly said that Microsoft will not use this 
information to help them target markets in anyway.  They will also never 
sell this information to comapnies who may wish to learn all they can 
about thier status through the MSN users, thus no profit will be 
accumulated through the existance of the wizard.  
	However, there are those who beleive that Microsoft won't be able 
to contain a vault of 24k gold and not sneek a peek every once in a 
while.  I tend to agree.  But then again, Microsoft is such a large 
company, that it might be successful in policing it's self.  But, the 
inforamtion gathered is so valuable to so many people, I see coruption 
as being inevitable.  But, who knows?  :\  

	-Kevin Stone
	   kbs3387@silver.sdsmt.edu

I just read an article in Inter@ctive Week that tested the
registration wizard in Win95.  The hooked up the system to intercept
the message and read what was being sent.  Guess What?  It was the
same info that the registration asked if it was ok to send.

You would think that if a couple of reporters working for a magazine
could figure out how to test the registration wizard, someone at
Motorola might be able to figure it out.  


adt@netcom.com (Anthony D. Tribelli) wrote:

>sp@questor.org wrote:
>: Motorola Canada Ltd. has issued a stern warning to its employees to stop
>: testing Microsoft Corp's. new software system Windows 95...
>:    At the heart of the concern is the registration wizard, a high-tech gadget
>: included with each test copy of Windows 95...

>I used the wizard once. It asked for permission and lets the user bail-out
>and register nothing. It is optional. It is not required, there is a
>postcard for conventional reqistration also. 

>I'll attempt to preempt a long and useless thread:

>    MS haters will say this is further evidence of the Great MS World
>    Domination Campaign.

>    Some who have not used the wizard will ask what corrective action
>    they should perform to ensure their security.

>    Other who have used the wizard will say it is not required, do not
>    use it if you are concerned.

>Tony

>-- 
>------------------
>Tony Tribelli
>adtribelli@acm.org

 billman@centcon.com   William Rini                      
 The Syndicate  http://www.centcon.com/~billman/syn.html 
                                                         
 PGP Fingerprint                                         
 9F FB EA C8 F6 46 29 45 A8 C3 7F B9 F8 E4 BD 70         
 Finger for public key                                   

In article <400emb$bnj@data.interserv.net> William Rini,
billman@centcon.com writes:
>I just read an article in Inter@ctive Week that tested the
>registration wizard in Win95.  The hooked up the system to intercept
>the message and read what was being sent.  Guess What?  It was the
>same info that the registration asked if it was ok to send.

>You would think that if a couple of reporters working for a magazine
>could figure out how to test the registration wizard, someone at
>Motorola might be able to figure it out.  

   The people defending the Registration Wizard appear to have no concept
of corporate security. Functionally, Microsoft has built a back door in
to their operating system. The wizard may only send what you say is OK,
but it has the capability of doing much more. Whether Microsoft does it,
or some enterprising hacker, the RW can profile the systems run by a
corporation, and send the information out. It is only a short stretch
from there to actually send out files, etc. This is not acceptable. It
couldn't be too difficult for a 'corporate espionage' type to produce a
virus or worm which would replace Microsoft's phone number with their
own, and use the RW to... 
   Well, you get the idea. From a corporate security viewpoint, Win95
_can not_ be used.


Aron S. Spencer
Radix Consulting

(919) 596-0152 Voice
(919) 596-0081 Fax
aspencer@nando.net
AOL: Asspencer
CIS: 75407,125

In <4006km$4os@questor.org>, sp@questor.org writes:
>The following article appeared in the Canadian financial newspaper "The
>Financial Post", August 5, 1995, and concerns computer security and Windows
>95 (It is being reprinted *without* permission):
>
>MOTOROLA ORDERS HALT ON WINDOWS TESTING
>
>Security on Microsoft software system still to be finetuned
>

Looks like a major story to me...............let's see how it plays out. 

Steve

|----------------------------------------------------------------
| Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand                                      
| sbwnz@ibm.net / swithers@vnet.ibm.com                                        
| Brought to you by OS/2 Warp v3.0 and the IBM Internet Connection 
| Apocalypse Computing: "I love the smell of Warp in the morning."
|----------------------------------------------------------------

sp@questor.org wrote:
>The following article appeared in the Canadian financial newspaper "The
>Financial Post", August 5, 1995, and concerns computer security and Windows
>95 (It is being reprinted *without* permission):
>
..
>
>   In a July 28 memo from Motorola's information security department, the
>company's wireless data group in Vancouver was told to refrain from
>connecting to the Microsoft network.  In addition, all purchase orders for
>the highly publicized new version of Microsoft's popular Windows operating
>software have been stopped until security issued are resolved.
>
..

My, my.  I do believe we have the first leak in the dike...

I, for one, have no intention of sticking my finger into the hole and try to stop 
it...  (On the other hand, I'm willing to get a shovel and see if I can widen the 
hole a bit more :)

Can Microsoft prove that it is not possible, using Win95 and the Microsoft Network 
for Microsoft to upload whatever they want from your machine to Microsoft?  I also 
am beginning to wonder if it might be possible for Microsoft to download whatever 
they want from Microsoft into your machine without your knowledge...

-- 
Sphere.

Find a Linux/GNU Group for you: http://www.tiac.net/users/williams/lugnuts/

Buy Linux brand UNIX!

In article <adtDCuMxJ.8yq@netcom.com>,
Anthony D. Tribelli <adt@netcom.com> wrote:
>sp@questor.org wrote:
>: Motorola Canada Ltd. has issued a stern warning to its employees to stop
>: testing Microsoft Corp's. new software system Windows 95...
>:    At the heart of the concern is the registration wizard, a high-tech gadget
>: included with each test copy of Windows 95...
>
>I used the wizard once. It asked for permission and lets the user bail-out
>and register nothing. It is optional. It is not required, there is a
>postcard for conventional reqistration also. 
>
>I'll attempt to preempt a long and useless thread:
>
>    MS haters will say this is further evidence of the Great MS World
>    Domination Campaign.
>
>    Some who have not used the wizard will ask what corrective action
>    they should perform to ensure their security.
>
>    Other who have used the wizard will say it is not required, do not
>    use it if you are concerned.
>

Did you have a "sniffer" running to verify what was/was not in the packets
being sent out to MS ?

Personally, I think I'd wait for the result of the Motorola study.  THAT is
certain to use sniffers, among other things.

Bob

In article <adtDCuMxJ.8yq@netcom.com>, adt@netcom.com (Anthony D.
Tribelli) wrote:

> sp@questor.org wrote:
>: Motorola Canada Ltd. has issued a stern warning to its employees to stop
>: testing Microsoft Corp's. new software system Windows 95...
>:    At the heart of the concern is the registration wizard, a high-tech gadget
>: included with each test copy of Windows 95...
> 
> I used the wizard once. It asked for permission and lets the user bail-out
> and register nothing. It is optional. It is not required, there is a
> postcard for conventional reqistration also. 


In my opinion that's beside the point.  The whole premise of the system
that MS incorporated into their OS is wrong from the get go.  Software
that goes through your hard drive, building a file of all the applications
and what not on your system to send off to another company is wrong wrong
wrong.  Can you tell me any company yet that has believed that this was
the 'right' thing to do?

The point is that it shouldn't be there, and it should have never been put
there.  It's none of Microsoft's business whatsoever, and furthermore,
many less computer literate people aren't going to understand what they're
doing when they go ahead with sending off the information to MS.

I am surprised, as others who have already posted in this thread, that not
much has been made of this so far.  In my network, I have asked that no
copies of Windows 95 be placed on machines until I further investigate
this situation.

For those who think that it's no big deal.. and that MS is just simply
looking out for the user's best interest.. let's open our eyes and wake
up.

-- 
Patrick B. Parker
Technical Coordinator
College of Pharmacy
University of Minnesota

pharmacy@maroon.tc.umn.edu (Patrick B. Parker) wrote:
>
>I am surprised, as others who have already posted in this thread, that not
>much has been made of this so far.  In my network, I have asked that no
>copies of Windows 95 be placed on machines until I further investigate
>this situation.
>


Given Microsoft's demonstrated moral values, I'd be very worried about their other 
Network oriented software as well....  There is no way anyone but Microsoft knows 
what their software is capable of doing over the nets.


-- 
Sphere.

Find a Linux/GNU Group for you: http://www.tiac.net/users/williams/lugnuts/

Buy Linux brand UNIX!

In article <400gtc$lv9@parsifal.nando.net>,
Aron S. Spencer  <aspencer@nando.net> wrote:
>In article <400emb$bnj@data.interserv.net> William Rini,
>billman@centcon.com writes:
>>I just read an article in Inter@ctive Week that tested the
>>registration wizard in Win95.  The hooked up the system to intercept
>>the message and read what was being sent.  Guess What?  It was the
>>same info that the registration asked if it was ok to send.
>
>>You would think that if a couple of reporters working for a magazine
>>could figure out how to test the registration wizard, someone at
>>Motorola might be able to figure it out.  
>
>   The people defending the Registration Wizard appear to have no concept
>of corporate security. Functionally, Microsoft has built a back door in
>to their operating system. The wizard may only send what you say is OK,
>but it has the capability of doing much more. Whether Microsoft does it,

Same could be said for every pppd and every internet connectivity package.
Course it won't make much difference if Art Bell's comet (1995 o1) wipes us
out in a few years.

caf@agora.rdrop.com (Chuck Forsberg) wrote:
>
>Same could be said for every pppd and every internet connectivity package.
>Course it won't make much difference if Art Bell's comet (1995 o1) wipes us
>out in a few years.

I'll admit that I haven't gotten about to reading the Net sources for
Linux yet, nor the source for most of the GNU utilities, but I have them,
and I'm sure that quite a few other people have read them.

-- 
Sphere.

Find a Linux/GNU Group for you: http://www.tiac.net/users/williams/lugnuts/

Buy Linux brand UNIX!

In <adtDCuMxJ.8yq@netcom.com>, adt@netcom.com (Anthony D. Tribelli) writes:
>sp@questor.org wrote:
>: Motorola Canada Ltd. has issued a stern warning to its employees to stop
>: testing Microsoft Corp's. new software system Windows 95...
>:    At the heart of the concern is the registration wizard, a high-tech gadget
>: included with each test copy of Windows 95...
>
>I used the wizard once. It asked for permission and lets the user bail-out
>and register nothing. It is optional. It is not required, there is a
>postcard for conventional reqistration also. 
>
>I'll attempt to preempt a long and useless thread:
>
>    MS haters will say this is further evidence of the Great MS World
>    Domination Campaign.
>
>    Some who have not used the wizard will ask what corrective action
>    they should perform to ensure their security.
>
>    Other who have used the wizard will say it is not required, do not
>    use it if you are concerned.
>
>Tony

How is tech support for Win95 going to be delivered? 

I had heard it would be via the MSN - and that in order to get help, you
would have to use the wizard....................

Is this true? If it is - (I don't know) - then there may not be as much choice as
you claim......

Steve


|----------------------------------------------------------------
| Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand                                      
| sbwnz@ibm.net / swithers@vnet.ibm.com                                        
| Brought to you by OS/2 Warp v3.0 and the IBM Internet Connection 
| Apocalypse Computing: "I love the smell of Warp in the morning."
|----------------------------------------------------------------

Do you feel unable to answer "No" when the registration wizard asks if
you would like to register online?  That's all you have to do people,
just answer "No"  But it sounds as if people claiming to be everything
from super hackers to system administrators haven't figured out how to
use that button.

Is it ok if they run AOL, Compuserve, Prodigy, or any other
communications program?  That modem sends info in both directions so
all those scenarios people are imagining could just as easily be
accomplished by any program that establishes a connection with your
computer.  Hey, maybe as you are posting this your sysadmin is peeking
at your files right now.  


pharmacy@maroon.tc.umn.edu (Patrick B. Parker) wrote:


>For those who think that it's no big deal.. and that MS is just simply
>looking out for the user's best interest.. let's open our eyes and wake
>up.

>-- 
>Patrick B. Parker
>Technical Coordinator
>College of Pharmacy
>University of Minnesota

 billman@centcon.com   William Rini                      
 The Syndicate  http://www.centcon.com/~billman/syn.html 
                                                         
 PGP Fingerprint                                         
 9F FB EA C8 F6 46 29 45 A8 C3 7F B9 F8 E4 BD 70         
 Finger for public key                                   

In article <402fqd$qp0@data.interserv.net>,
William Rini <billman@centcon.com> wrote:
>Do you feel unable to answer "No" when the registration wizard asks if
>you would like to register online?  That's all you have to do people,
>just answer "No"  But it sounds as if people claiming to be everything
>from super hackers to system administrators haven't figured out how to
>use that button.

Why are motorola's software boys even installing the RW portion of 
Windows 95?  It's not like they would otherwise individually register
god-knows-how-many-thousand copies of Windows in the normal course of
events.

It makes no sense.  

-- 
--
Windows 95 and Windows NT: IBM's OS choices for IBM hardware, x86 and PowerPC

billman@centcon.com (William Rini) wrote:
>Do you feel unable to answer "No" when the registration wizard asks if
>you would like to register online?  That's all you have to do people,
>just answer "No"  But it sounds as if people claiming to be everything
>from super hackers to system administrators haven't figured out how to
>use that button.
>

I know that I could very easily write a dialog with "yes" and "no"
buttons and then do whatever I please based upon which button was
pressed.  Maybe when you press YES it sends the data right away, but
when you press NO it waits and dribbles the data back over time.

Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean that Microsoft isn't out to
get me.  That data would be extremely usefull to have, and I wouldn't
put it past Microsoft to try to get it.

-- 
Sphere.

Find a Linux/GNU Group for you: http://www.tiac.net/users/williams/lugnuts/

Buy Linux brand UNIX!

William Rini (billman@centcon.com) wrote:
: Do you feel unable to answer "No" when the registration wizard asks if
: you would like to register online?  That's all you have to do people,
: just answer "No"  But it sounds as if people claiming to be everything
: from super hackers to system administrators haven't figured out how to
: use that button.

Sorry, but it isn't OK for a company to put anything it pleases in its
software as long as it asks you.  "Would you like to have your hard drive
erased?"  Just press "No," for god's sake!  "Would you like to have all of
the information in your credit report downloaded to Microsloth?"  Just
press "No"!  The problem is that this RW has no business being there in
the first place. 

Steve

My friend's dad works for a computer programming company which was beta
testing Win95. He now has the final version, which is going to be sold in
stores when hell freezes over, on his Pentium. He says that while it's
nice, it's really not that much different from the current version.
Whatever. Just a quick update.

sbwwgtn@ibm.net  (Steve Withers) wrote:

>In <adtDCuMxJ.8yq@netcom.com>, adt@netcom.com (Anthony D. Tribelli) writes:

>>I'll attempt to preempt a long and useless thread:
>>
>>    MS haters will say this is further evidence of the Great MS World
>>    Domination Campaign.
>>
>>    Some who have not used the wizard will ask what corrective action
>>    they should perform to ensure their security.
>>
>>    Other who have used the wizard will say it is not required, do not
>>    use it if you are concerned.
>>
>>Tony

>How is tech support for Win95 going to be delivered? 

>I had heard it would be via the MSN - and that in order to get help, you
>would have to use the wizard....................

>Is this true? If it is - (I don't know) - then there may not be as much choice as
>you claim......

There will be several means of support for Windows. Only one is
through MSN. there is also CompuServe and of course you can dial-up
PSS and talk with them. You only get support through MSN if you choose
to.

Dale Ross
L & H Technologies

|==============================================================|
| Nothing I have written here is in any way, shape, or form is |
| official or unofficial L & H Technologies policy or opinion. |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|
|   Sysop Win32 Support BBS Charlotte, NC USA (704) 588-2669   |
|       INET: daleross@cybernetics.net; daleross@msn.com       |
|       CIS: 71034,1573; msn: daleross; Fidonet 1:379/45       |
'=============================================================='
.sig '95 - RTM

In <pharmacy-0508952141310001@dialup-5-145.gw.umn.edu>, pharmacy@maroon.tc.umn.edu (Patrick B. Parker) writes:

..
>The point is that it shouldn't be there, and it should have never been put
>there.  It's none of Microsoft's business whatsoever, and furthermore,
>many less computer literate people aren't going to understand what they're
>doing when they go ahead with sending off the information to MS.
..

I can just see MS sniffing out some poor user's drive and finding an 
illegal copy of DOS/Windows on there that, was put on by the PC vendor
which the user believes he paid for, and MS sending the software police
to their door.  They ask him to produce the original disks, and he says
"They didn't give me any, I didn't know I needed any."

>Patrick B. Parker
>Technical Coordinator
>College of Pharmacy
>University of Minnesota


                              ________ 
Ryan Gray                   ~/    ^. .^          Programmer
gray@fastlane.net            | ___(("))          Digital Solutions, Inc.
gray@jupiter.uta.edu         |/\| \|\|           Bedford, TX

Jim Williams <williams@tiac.net> wrote:

>I know that I could very easily write a dialog with "yes" and "no"
>buttons and then do whatever I please based upon which button was
>pressed.  Maybe when you press YES it sends the data right away, but
>when you press NO it waits and dribbles the data back over time.

Well considering the fact that it would have to dial up through a
modem, I think it's a pretty good bet you would notice if the "no"
button transmitted information.

>Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean that Microsoft isn't out to
>get me.  That data would be extremely usefull to have, and I wouldn't
>put it past Microsoft to try to get it.

Please, leave you illusions of grandure someplace else.  What do you
have on your HD that MS would find soooooo useful?  You don't sound
paranoid, you sound pathetic.


>-- 
>Sphere.

>Find a Linux/GNU Group for you: http://www.tiac.net/users/williams/lugnuts/

>Buy Linux brand UNIX!



 billman@centcon.com   William Rini                      
 The Syndicate  http://www.centcon.com/~billman/syn.html 
                                                         
 PGP Fingerprint                                         
 9F FB EA C8 F6 46 29 45 A8 C3 7F B9 F8 E4 BD 70         
 Finger for public key                                   

It's because the story is not true.  This is probably the 8 - 10th
time that I have heard the same story with a different company or
government office.  It's always covered by some small publication that
only the poster subscribes to and it never makes it into the
mainstream press.  Of course nobody who actually was supposedly
involved ever is quoted in the piece (too easy to check out the
story).  Why didn't the piece quote a Motorola employee by name?  Why
is the source always anonymous?  Why can't anybody ever verify
anything the original poster claims?  

The part I find funny is that I know of very few companies or
government offices that allow their employees to hook up AOL or
Compuserve to the company network, but all of a sudden we are supposed
to believe that a company as big as Motorola is beta testing the
Microsoft Network with hundreds possibly thousands of it's employees.
Also Microsoft has had the registration wizard in much much earlier
versions of the beta that have been in the hands of all the potential
big buyers for close to a year.  Are we supposed to believe that
Motorola JUST figured out that there is a registration wizard?  

Why don't they just stick to posting the "PGP Cracked" stories where
some NSA computer figured out a backdoor to PGP?  

rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (R S Rodgers) wrote:

>Why are motorola's software boys even installing the RW portion of 
>Windows 95?  It's not like they would otherwise individually register
>god-knows-how-many-thousand copies of Windows in the normal course of
>events.

>It makes no sense.  

>-- 
>--
>Windows 95 and Windows NT: IBM's OS choices for IBM hardware, x86 and PowerPC

 billman@centcon.com   William Rini                      
 The Syndicate  http://www.centcon.com/~billman/syn.html 
                                                         
 PGP Fingerprint                                         
 9F FB EA C8 F6 46 29 45 A8 C3 7F B9 F8 E4 BD 70         
 Finger for public key                                   

billman@centcon.com (William Rini) wrote:
> billman@centcon.com   William Rini                      
> The Syndicate  http://www.centcon.com/~billman/syn.html 

How much Microsoft stock do you own?

-- 
Sphere.

Find a Linux/GNU Group for you: http://www.tiac.net/users/williams/lugnuts/

Buy Free UNIX!

In article <4035gt$53c@dfw.nkn.net>, gray@fastlane.net wrote:

> In <pharmacy-0508952141310001@dialup-5-145.gw.umn.edu>,
pharmacy@maroon.tc.umn.edu (Patrick B. Parker) writes:
> 
> ..
> >The point is that it shouldn't be there, and it should have never been put
> >there.  It's none of Microsoft's business whatsoever, and furthermore,
> >many less computer literate people aren't going to understand what they're
> >doing when they go ahead with sending off the information to MS.
> ..
> 
> I can just see MS sniffing out some poor user's drive and finding an 
> illegal copy of DOS/Windows on there that, was put on by the PC vendor
> which the user believes he paid for, and MS sending the software police
> to their door.  They ask him to produce the original disks, and he says
> "They didn't give me any, I didn't know I needed any."
>
as somebody esle pointed out a few posts ago - worrying aobut MS getting
to your data is only a small portion of hte problem.  Not that I'd put it
past them if the computers belonged to a largecompetitor (Novell, IBM,
APPLE...). The problem is that this is a hunk of stuff designed to allow
outside access to your system.  It's NOT like a modem and calling online
services.  With the Registration Wizard attached, any sufficiently clever
person can get into your system and basically rape it.
That's even if you tell it "NO".  as long as it's attached.

This isn't even POTENTIALLY the most dangerous new device in computer
history.. it IS the most dangerous.

Sure, you don't have to install it.. you shouldn't have the option -it
should NOT exist

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erik@hypermall.com
                    As a matter of fact, I DO speak for the company!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <403avg$3tr@data.interserv.net>,
William Rini <billman@centcon.com> wrote:
>Jim Williams <williams@tiac.net> wrote:
>
>>I know that I could very easily write a dialog with "yes" and "no"
>>buttons and then do whatever I please based upon which button was
>>pressed.  Maybe when you press YES it sends the data right away, but
>>when you press NO it waits and dribbles the data back over time.
>
>Well considering the fact that it would have to dial up through a
>modem, I think it's a pretty good bet you would notice if the "no"
>button transmitted information.

I hate to have to point out the obvious, but wouldn't you have to 
"dial up through a modem" every time you want to connect to MSN?

sounds like plenty of opportunity to "dribble" the data over time.

Just keeping you intellectually honest...

--
It's sad to see people buying wholesale into some Microsoft-generated
hype about ancient ideas emerging as 'New Technology'.

Heres my two cents worth:

1) No one is forcing anybody to buy Microsoft products.  Therefore if they
want to have an optional link that allows you to call them to register
then that is their business.

2) Apple has been bundleing E-World with System 7.5 for close to a year
now.  Much like the MSN it can be accessed by a simple double click. If I
were Microsoft I would argue that if they can't do it Apple shouldn't be
allowed to do it either.  I guarantee you E-World wouldn't exist now if
Apple didn't pre-install it on many of its computers. Plus, since Apple
is also supplying the hardware it is even more of a conflict since IBM
compatibles can always be installed with other OS's.

3) Apple's Apple Talk Remote Access technology and the AOL core of e-world
could allow the exact same "theft" of information as Microsofts stragegy.
In fact Apple's tight integration with the hardware and Apple talk network
could make it even easier.  For MS to pull the same thing off it would 
have to deal with many other hardware and network configurations.

4) Maybe some people just don't have the security thing clear.  If you have
very serious information that needs to be protected you shouldn't have it
visible when you call any network.  MSN is the least of your worries considering
they are a highly visible entity.  The most sensitive of data should be
encrypted, viewed, and re-encrypted. Put your data on to floppies, removable
HD's, or protected partitions.  Don't blame MS for your parinoia.

5) As a Win 95 purchaser I have a right to register on-line if Microsoft
makes that option available.  Just as you have a right not to.  Or for
that matter not to use Microsoft products at all.  Just as I have a right
to use E-world on a Macintosh if I want to.  Or not buy any Apple products
at all.

6) One solution for an administrator is to simply go through and remove the
MSN software from the computer.  I've removed e-world from a 3-dozen or so
Macs just because it was taking up space.  It wasn't because I was parinoid
that Apple was going to search my hard drive but the result is the same.

The truth is that some people don't like MS and the fear that Windows 95
puts in to hearts of other OS's is very real. To fight back they look for
anything that they can to find fault in MS.  Even if Apple has been doing
the same thing for the past year. I used to be a long time Mac advocate
but Apple's continuing faliure to produce any meaningful gains in market
share turned me away. While converting to Windows, Mac users acted like I was a 
Benidict Arnold because I was using the evil MS software. The arrogance
of Mac users (which I at one time was too Mac loving myself) only pushed me
further away. 

Now the truth:  Windows 95 levels the playing field pretty much squashing
the last few advantages the Macintosh had.  Of course Mac biggots will
point out some things the Mac does better, but who cares!!!
There are many more applications for Windows with more and more to come.
OS/2 while a good operating system suffers from the same, no real compeling
applications to dedicate large numbers of users.  

I know some very large companies I used to work for that are currently 
100% Macintosh.  One of them has 125 Macintoshes.  Starting this summer
they began switching over to Windows.  By this time next year they expect
to have sold all their Macs (or dumped them in the trash) and replaced
them with PC's.  The main reason is that there just simply isn't
the Macintosh consultants out their with experience in large corporate
information systems. Everytime they talk with "experts" in their industry
they get told "what the hell are you doing with Macs?  Get some PC's and
then maybe we can help you."  Accountants tell them "Get PC's then we
can exchange info better."  New employees instantly question "Why do you
have Macs?  Aren't PC's for business." and on and on...  They soon began
to question why they are fighting so hard to keep Macs.

As I consultant I simply say if you want to do Mac's, fine I can do that.
If you want to do Windows, I do that too.  But I NEVER recommend Macs
because I almost always get burned for it.  Other consultants and businesses
continually question your decisions and think your an amature if you recommend
Macs.  They think that you can't do PC's and are therefore not as good.
In fact I'm still trying to shake my Mac upbringing with some of my clients.
They think I don't "really" know PC's because I used to use and recommend Macs.
  
At least with Windows 95 I don't have to feel any guilt about pushing the
Macs aside.  Truth is after 11 years the Mac is finally a second class
citizen in virtually every aspect.


gmoss@midwest.net

When AOL "transmits" artwork, or when any online service has a
connection to your machine it has the potential to also retreive
information about your machine, so I don't see the point of making the
registration wizard some sort of issue.  Since most of you hate
Microsoft and hate Windows, what are the chances that you are going to
buy Win95 and use MSN anyways?  Really all you have to do is not use
their service if you want to make 110% sure that Billy Gates isn't
looking at your hard drive.  Perhaps they should just include a
disclaimer "The truely paranoid should be cautioned that this product
will ask you if you would like to register online.  If this will cause
you to wet your pants, please DO NOT use the Microsoft Network."

There are several issues that everybody Gates-bashing don't want to
address.

1.  Inter@ctive Week tested the registration wizard to find out
exactly what info it transmitted.  Guess what?  It was the data it
asked permission to transmit.  I have seen several other publications
conduct similar tests, all with the same conclusion.

2.  Nobody was quoted in the article the original poster supposedly
got the info from.  Besides the fact nobody has ever heard of the
publication. 

3.  Why would Motorola just figure out what the registration wizard
does after a year or more of beta testing it?  It's not like it's a
hidden feature, it's part of the damn installation procedure.

4.  Why has this same story appreared several times with the name of
the company changed?  Why is it whenever someone says they heard that
so and so wasn't going to buy Win95 because of the registration
wizard, they can never recall or give a specific person?

5.  Since when do companies allow large numbers of employees to dial
up online services like MSN and AOL (If someone has an answer, please
let me know, because I would love to work there)?  Better yet, since
when do large corporations individually register each copy of
software?

Answer those questions and you can consider yourself furthering an
intelligent conversation, if not your post is nothing more than a
waste of bandwidth.

I neither own any Microsoft (but I do wish the stock would get whacked
so I can pick up a couple of hundred shares on the cheap) nor am I
employeed by them.  I simply think we could all spend our days
worrying about something more worthwhile than made up scare stories.




jjs@dostoevsky.ucr.edu (Joe Sloan) wrote:


>I hate to have to point out the obvious, but wouldn't you have to 
>"dial up through a modem" every time you want to connect to MSN?

>sounds like plenty of opportunity to "dribble" the data over time.

>Just keeping you intellectually honest...




 billman@centcon.com   William Rini                      
 The Syndicate  http://www.centcon.com/~billman/syn.html 
                                                         
 PGP Fingerprint                                         
 9F FB EA C8 F6 46 29 45 A8 C3 7F B9 F8 E4 BD 70         
 Finger for public key                                   

I'm no big fan of Microsoft, but, are *all* stories as obviously
biased and slanted as that one in Canadian papers? Sticking in that
kicker at the end about the Justice Dept's investigation was kimd of
gratuitous. Also, in just about every listserv newsletter I receive and 
pretty much most of the PC related Usenet newsgroups, this whole thing has
been hashed-out repeatedly. In short, Old News. What was the headline story,
"US President Lincoln Reportedly Receives Grievous Wound While Attending
 Theater"? 

pharmacy@maroon.tc.umn.edu (Patrick B. Parker) writes:
>I can just see MS sniffing out some poor user's drive and finding an 
>illegal copy of DOS/Windows on there that, was put on by the PC vendor
>which the user believes he paid for, and MS sending the software police
>to their door.  They ask him to produce the original disks, and he says
>"They didn't give me any, I didn't know I needed any."
>                              ________ 
>Ryan Gray                   ~/    ^. .^          Programmer
>gray@fastlane.net            | ___(("))          Digital Solutions, Inc.
>gray@jupiter.uta.edu         |/\| \|\|           Bedford, TX

  I can't.  Furthermore, it's an absurd conclusion to make.

  You think Microsoft even *CARES* if Joe Sixpack has an illegal copy of 
Windows or DOS?  I'm sure their perfectly aware of this and accept it as 
the cost of doing business.  People's Orwellian views of modern technology 
are really starting to get on my nerves.

  Granted, I'm fully opposed to software companies, and anyone else for that 
matter, invading my privacy.  But to make such an illogical conclusion gets 
you nowhere.  Microsoft has nothing to gain by expending the effort to bust 
up a single user with a copied version of Windows 95.  Sure they might 
investigate a corporate installation if they are suspect, at least that 
would justify the cost of the investigation/litigation if it was to pan out.  
But you and me?  Hardly.
  
  If you don't like them, or what they do vote with your checkbook.  Nobody 
is forcing you to but their products.

In article <denryanDCx1Hy.H4t@netcom.com>,  <denryan@netcom.com> wrote:
>I'm no big fan of Microsoft, but, are *all* stories as obviously
>biased and slanted as that one in Canadian papers? Sticking in that
>kicker at the end about the Justice Dept's investigation was kimd of
>gratuitous. 

The problem with microsoft is that "David" has become "Goliath".

In their climb to the top, MS has twisted quite a few arms and
played quite a bit of hardball - what goes around, comes around...

--
It's sad to see people buying wholesale into some Microsoft-generated
hype about ancient ideas emerging as 'New Technology'.

Jim Williams <williams@tiac.net> wrote:

>sp@questor.org wrote:
>>The following article appeared in the Canadian financial newspaper "The
>>Financial Post", August 5, 1995, and concerns computer security and Windows
>>95 (It is being reprinted *without* permission):
>>
>..
>>
>>   In a July 28 memo from Motorola's information security department, the
>>company's wireless data group in Vancouver was told to refrain from
>>connecting to the Microsoft network.  In addition, all purchase orders for
>>the highly publicized new version of Microsoft's popular Windows operating
>>software have been stopped until security issued are resolved.
>>
>..

>My, my.  I do believe we have the first leak in the dike...

>I, for one, have no intention of sticking my finger into the hole and try to stop 
>it...  (On the other hand, I'm willing to get a shovel and see if I can widen the 
>hole a bit more :)

>Can Microsoft prove that it is not possible, using Win95 and the Microsoft Network 
>for Microsoft to upload whatever they want from your machine to Microsoft?  I also 
>am beginning to wonder if it might be possible for Microsoft to download whatever 
>they want from Microsoft into your machine without your knowledge...

>-- 
>Sphere.

>Find a Linux/GNU Group for you: http://www.tiac.net/users/williams/lugnuts/

>Buy Linux brand UNIX!


The main thing that I see with the RW is as a marketing tool.   All
that is needed is for the titles of s/w to be sent and then a
databases of replies to be set up.  I would have thought it would then
be relatively simple for selective mail shots to be sent to registered
users.....eg user has Word Perfect...send shot on MS Office etc.
It is happening already with supermarkets and their loyalty/bonus
cards.  These, over time, profile your use of the supermarkets
departments/sections.  There was a programme on TV here showing
supermarkets in, I think, Arizona.  With these cards they could find
out which shoppers did NOT use the in store bakeries...therefore, they
mailed special offers to them. A high percentage of those taking up
the offers, still used the bakeries after the offer expired (about 30
per cent I think).    So MS ain`t doing it purely, if at all, for your
benefit.

jjs@dostoevsky.ucr.edu (Joe Sloan) wrote:


>>Well considering the fact that it would have to dial up through a
>>modem, I think it's a pretty good bet you would notice if the "no"
>>button transmitted information.

>I hate to have to point out the obvious, but wouldn't you have to 
>"dial up through a modem" every time you want to connect to MSN?

>sounds like plenty of opportunity to "dribble" the data over time.

>Just keeping you intellectually honest...

If anyone remembers, when Prodigy first came out, the EXACT same
concerns were voiced.  Since Prodigy was the first product (well,
first widespread IBM product) that reduced telecommunications to a
<ahem> "slick" graphical interface, everyone was amazed... THEN
someone realized that they couldn't tell WHAT the hell their modem was
doing while those pretty screens were flashing by...

As I recall, the scare kept up for a good 2 weeks or so, until someone
from Prodigy finally pointed out that with the company pulling in
$15mil a month, they really didn't give a damn about your hard drive.
;-)

Jim Williams <williams@tiac.net> wrote:

>Can Microsoft prove that it is not possible, using Win95 and the Microsoft Network 
>for Microsoft to upload whatever they want from your machine to Microsoft?  I also 
>am beginning to wonder if it might be possible for Microsoft to download whatever 
>they want from Microsoft into your machine without your knowledge...

Of course not.  They shouldn't have to.  Can you prove that America
Online, Prodigy, Compuserve aren't sucking your hard drive away bit by
bit with every keystroke you send over the modem?  How about netscape?
Maybe every time you access a web page, it secretely goes to the
netscape home page and transmits one more directory name... Maybe all
the winsock companies are in on it, too, slowly leeching your private
information, then selling it on the black market... 

Give me a break.  It's not as if this was a 'hidden' feature of MSN...

:>Is it ok if they run AOL, Compuserve, Prodigy, or any other
:>communications program?  That modem sends info in both directions so
:>all those scenarios people are imagining could just as easily be
:>accomplished by any program that establishes a connection with your
:>computer.  Hey, maybe as you are posting this your sysadmin is peeking
:>at your files right now.  


AOL did apparently have something like the Registration Wizard a few 
years back, but removed this "feature" after receiving complaints.  M$ 
will probably fight the issue for a long time, they don't like to admit 
their mistakes.

adaml@gate.net (Adam L) wrote:

>Give me a break.  It's not as if this was a 'hidden' feature of MSN...

Not only is it not a "hidden" feature, it's part of the installation.
It says that a modem has been detected and asks if you would like
register online.  If you say yes it does a quick check of your system,
displays some info about your setup (Processor, RAM, etc.) and then
checks for software.  It displays a screen with the info that it
wishes to transmit and asks if it's ok  to send it.  You choose "Yes"
or "No, don't send"  

So not only do you have a choice of even going through the online
registration process (you could say "No" when it asks if you want to
register online), but then it tells you exactly what it intends to
send, which you can deny.

Yeah real sinister sounding to me too.



 billman@centcon.com   William Rini                      
 The Syndicate  http://www.centcon.com/~billman/syn.html 
                                                         
 PGP Fingerprint                                         
 9F FB EA C8 F6 46 29 45 A8 C3 7F B9 F8 E4 BD 70         
 Finger for public key                                   

In article <403bl5$45g@data.interserv.net>, William Rini <billman@centcon.com> wrote:
>
> It's always covered by some small publication that only the poster
> subscribes to and it never makes it into the mainstream press.

    The Financial Post is hardly a small publication, nor is the
original poster its only subscriber.  When one of the "mainstream"
media outlets does publish this story (let's pick "Time" magazine),
you will no doubt discount it as more hype, that "Time" isn't
qualified to comment on technological matters, and that it is simply
jumping on the MS-bashing bandwagon.

> The part I find funny is that I know of very few companies or
> government offices that allow their employees to hook up AOL or
> Compuserve to the company network, but all of a sudden we are supposed
> to believe that a company as big as Motorola is beta testing the
> Microsoft Network with hundreds possibly thousands of it's employees.

    This is what I read:

|    Motorola Canada Ltd. has issued a stern warning to its employees
|    to stop testing Microsoft Corp's. new software system Windows 95.

    I interpreted this as employees of Motorola installing and running
pre-release versions of Windows 95 on their personal workstations at
the company.  I don't not see any implication that this was in any way
an official beta test cycle at Motorola.  I can't comment on
Motorola's internal policies regarding the administration and
maintenance of individual workstations, but LAN managers may have the
authority to install OS's for the use of a select number of employees.
-- 
Brian ("Though this be madness, yet there is method in't") Tao
taob@gate.sinica.edu.tw <-- work ........ play --> taob@io.org

>  If you don't like them, or what they do vote with your checkbook.  Nobody 
>is forcing you to but their products.

This is incorrect. Almost all laptops and most desktop computer 
systems being sold today have dos/windows pre-installed, wheather you 
like it or not. You have to go out of your way to buy a computer without 
windows on it. I managed to do this by building my own computer, but I 
was forced to have a chip with the !@#$ windows logo on it because I 
saved money and bought an AMD instead of an Intel chip.

With AMD concentrating on optimizing their new chips for windows, amoung 
other things, Linux users are paying for fluff that is totally 
unnnecessary in Linux, becuase of the existance of Windows.

People will soon start having to buy computers with keyboards that have the 
stupid windows logos on them-- that'll make them feel pretty strange 
running a non-windows system, to sat the least.

Microsoft is becoming more and more of a monopoly.
-- 
Copyright 1995 Sam Trenholme.  Microsoft Network is prohibited from 
redistributing this work in any form, in whole or in part.  License to 
distribute this post is available to Microsoft for $1000.  Posting without 
permission constitutes an agreement to these terms.  Any network provider not
owned or operated in whole or in part by Microsoft may use this message freely.

>Of course not.  They shouldn't have to.  Can you prove that America
>Online, Prodigy, Compuserve aren't sucking your hard drive away bit by
>bit with every keystroke you send over the modem?  How about netscape?
>Maybe every time you access a web page, it secretely goes to the
>netscape home page and transmits one more directory name... Maybe all
>the winsock companies are in on it, too, slowly leeching your private
>information, then selling it on the black market... 

Let me rebut this by asking you two questions:

1) Is the source code to Netscape freely available?

2) Is the source code to the Microsoft netowrk freely available?

If the source code is available, it is a simple matter of combing the 
source code to find backdoors that do this kind of thing. If the source 
code is not available, one has to resort to using sniffers to look at 
what is going over your phone line.

UNIX does have it's advantages.

-- 
Copyright 1995 Sam Trenholme.  Microsoft Network is prohibited from 
redistributing this work in any form, in whole or in part.  License to 
distribute this post is available to Microsoft for $1000.  Posting without 
permission constitutes an agreement to these terms.  Any network provider not
owned or operated in whole or in part by Microsoft may use this message freely.

gmoss@midwest.net (Greg Moss) wrote:
>
>5) As a Win 95 purchaser I have a right to register on-line if Microsoft
>makes that option available.  Just as you have a right not to.  Or for
>that matter not to use Microsoft products at all.  Just as I have a right
>to use E-world on a Macintosh if I want to.  Or not buy any Apple products
>at all.
>

I don't use Apple products either.  I think you are addressing the wrong
group here.  I have a feeling most of the people you are responding to
here are not interested in buying more of either Microsoft's or Apple's
bull.

-- 
Sphere.

Find a Linux/GNU Group for you: http://www.tiac.net/users/williams/lugnuts/

Buy Free UNIX!

In <402k4r$brh@sundog.tiac.net> Jim Williams <williams@tiac.net> writes:
>billman@centcon.com (William Rini) wrote:
>>Do you feel unable to answer "No" when the registration wizard asks if
>>you would like to register online?  That's all you have to do people,
>>just answer "No"  But it sounds as if people claiming to be everything
>>from super hackers to system administrators haven't figured out how to
>>use that button.
>>

>I know that I could very easily write a dialog with "yes" and "no"
>buttons and then do whatever I please based upon which button was
>pressed.  Maybe when you press YES it sends the data right away, but
>when you press NO it waits and dribbles the data back over time.

>Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean that Microsoft isn't out to
>get me.  That data would be extremely usefull to have, and I wouldn't
>put it past Microsoft to try to get it.

Consider the fact that there are people like you in existence (paranoid).
Consider that some of these people will inevitably reverse engineer the
package to see what is going on.

Now consider MS' position. Feel the heavy breathing of the whining, whingeing
competition.

Would you 
a) Not send the information if they pressed 'no'.
b) Send the information anyway.

Do you really think MS are *that* stupid?

/\/.

-- 



|\Nigel Magnay\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\[_][~][X]|
|magnayn@cs.man.ac.uk       {Main}|   3rd yr. CS, University of Manchester   |
|nigel@rcp.co.uk      {Summer job}|                                          |
|http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~magnayn |"Because you know I'm better than you are"|
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------/

nigel@rcp.co.uk (Nigel) wrote:
>Now consider MS' position. Feel the heavy breathing of the whining, whingeing
>competition.
>
>Would you 
>a) Not send the information if they pressed 'no'.
>b) Send the information anyway.
>
>Do you really think MS are *that* stupid?
>

Their marketing department?  I don't know.

Their development department.  Yes.

-- 
Sphere.

Find a Linux/GNU Group for you: http://www.tiac.net/users/williams/lugnuts/

Buy Free UNIX!

In <4006km$4os@questor.org>, sp@questor.org wrote about the Win95
 registration wizard.


Once, I bought something from Microsoft by mail order.

They sold my name on some list and now I get all sorts
of crap in the mail that I don't want.  Worse, there's
a credit bureau file with my name on it.

How dare they do this?

---

Yes, this is supposed to be funny.  What I mean is, how come
people get bent out of shape by odd rumours like the Win 95 registration
wizard one, and don't seem to mind the more blatant invasions
of privacy that go on every day?

Apologies for the absence of any relevance to Intel processors
here.  (Unless of course TRW runs on Intel...)

In article <404hu2$m4i@lll-winken.llnl.gov>,
Sam Trenholme <set@oryx.llnl.gov> wrote:

>1) Is the source code to Netscape freely available?

No.

>2) Is the source code to the Microsoft netowrk freely available?

No.


--
Steve Kanefsky

In article <405anp$t3d@nntpd.lkg.dec.com>,
dave porter <porter@mu.enet.dec.com> wrote:
>Once, I bought something from Microsoft by mail order.
>
>They sold my name on some list and now I get all sorts
>of crap in the mail that I don't want.  Worse, there's
>a credit bureau file with my name on it.
>
>How dare they do this?

R. T. Rodgers still gets mail from the address information that IBM sold
to a number of interested parties after I registered OS/2 2.0 or 2.1.  I know 
that the source is IBM because the middle initial is one that I have only used
with IBM.

-- 
---- Windows 95 and NT: IBM's OS choices for IBM hardware, x86 and PowerPC ----
"That's not our primary target.  There are people out there who love 
 [OS/2 Warp] on the desktop, but our focus is on large enterprise customers."
	-- chief executive officer Louis Gerstner (IBM) (July, 1995)

Kevin Stone (kbs3387@silver.sdsmt.edu) wrote:
<<deletia>>
: But then again, Microsoft is such a large 
: company, that it might be successful in policing it's self.  But, the 
: inforamtion gathered is so valuable to so many people, I see coruption 
: as being inevitable.

    Eh?  Because it is a large company, it might be successful in policing
    itself?  I don't think so.  Accountablity decreases with size.

Dan
--

Daniel Robinson, dgr@nds.com, dgr@cyberspace.com

My opinions may not be shared by my employer, but he's never commented on it.

rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (R S Rodgers) wrote:
>
>R. T. Rodgers still gets mail from the address information that IBM sold
>to a number of interested parties after I registered OS/2 2.0 or 2.1.  I know 
>that the source is IBM because the middle initial is one that I have only used
>with IBM.
>


So IBM is slime too.  Why is it I'm not surprized?


-- 
Sphere.

Find a Linux/GNU Group for you: http://www.tiac.net/users/williams/lugnuts/

Buy Free UNIX!

Here's my experience with win95.

Actually, Win95 is quite a bit of clever engineering. I installed it,
but said no to the RW option. However, I've got a cheap phone, the kind
that click when another phone picks up the line, and I heard it click
when I said no. Picked up the phone, but just got a dial tone. I believe
that Win95 picked connected to the modem, turned off the speaker, and
did a carrier detect.

Later, around 4am EDT, I was still up, and I had left the machine up in
Win95, when I heard that click again. I could see the lights
on my external 28.8k USR modem flashing, but if I had an internal, like
most people, and not had the phone the clicks, I would have never known.
Suspecting win95 was at it again, I picked up the phone, only to hear 
the modem dialing. Another modem picked up at the other end of the
line. I pulled the phone line out of the wall while the modems were hand
shaking.

As soon as the connection was lost, I heard my hard drive
thrashing. Win95 must be covering up it's tracks. Quickly, hit the power
switch while it was still accessing the disk.

Next, I booted linux, and looked through all my dos
directories. Thankfully, linux displays all the hidden directories as
well. When I did an ls -alt on my c:\w95tmp directory, there seemed to
be some binary files that had been created within the last 20 minutes. 

I suspected that the these files must have be encrypted or compressed, 
so I wrote a simple program that would try to figure out the
information by trying some standard compression/decompression algorithms
and simple encryption decryption techniques, and pipe the result to "strings"
It's a good thing I took that cryptography class last term. Well, I let
run all night, it's a good think I had that phone, let me tell you.

The results:

1 file: full directory listing of my c: drive.
1 file: full directory listing of my d: drive.
1 file: personal informations. All strings in any of my files that 
	match zip codes, phone numbers, and the surrounding lines in
	those text files.
1 file:	lists my name, win95 serial number, my disk partitions,
	like the output of fdisk. (the linux one, dos fdisk.exe can
	only identify dos and non-dos. This one indicated my linux and
	swap partitions) There was also some sort of ranking:
	the top line was:
	
		Priority: 89

1 file:	linux-specific information, like /etc/passwd /etc/HOSTNAME/
	/etc/rc.d/*, pgp keyrings, etc. This was pretty
	scary. Apparently, win95 can mount ext2 partitions and read
	them.

I don't know what files were successfully deleted before I shut the
power off.

:^) <- this is included for the humor-impaired.

BTW. I have no interest in buying win95, or any other MS
products. Fortunately, I know how to use mor powerful tools that I've
got for free with linux, like emacs, gcc, etc. and I can write my own
apps as I need them. I'll buy native ports if they are priced
reasonably, but I like my 32-bit machines running 32-bit OSes, with
reliable PMT. =)

Just thought I'd try to lighten things up on this thread. It would be
scary if I found out this fiction did resemble the truth.

Dave Hwang
martus@mit.edu

Jim Williams <williams@tiac.net> writes:
>nigel@rcp.co.uk (Nigel) wrote:
>>Now consider MS' position. Feel the heavy breathing of the whining, whingeing
>>competition.
>>Would you 
>>a) Not send the information if they pressed 'no'.
>>b) Send the information anyway.
>>Do you really think MS are *that* stupid?

>Their marketing department?  I don't know.
>Their development department.  Yes.

Their legal department?  "Hell, we've got the Justice Department cowed!
Why not format the hard drive if there's any copies of Quicktime for Windows
while you're at it?"

Dave Hwang <martus@mit.edu> writes:


>:^) <- this is included for the humor-impaired.

>BTW. I have no interest in buying win95, or any other MS
>products. Fortunately, I know how to use mor powerful tools that I've
>got for free with linux, like emacs, gcc, etc. and I can write my own
>apps as I need them. I'll buy native ports if they are priced
>reasonably, but I like my 32-bit machines running 32-bit OSes, with
>reliable PMT. =)

>Just thought I'd try to lighten things up on this thread. It would be
>scary if I found out this fiction did resemble the truth.

You were lucky. You were able to turn off your computer. I tried. Oh I 
tried. But it kept on turning back on. I had to sleep. When I woke up I 
found Windows 95 put a big smily face on the screen. I tried to approach 
it to turn it off. It said, in a voice reminiscent of swedisch accent '85 
macintalk, I'm sorry Jay, but I can't let you do that. I'm in the other 
room.... typing this on my mac......... its coming.... help...... 
cibtkjhdsfkjh
--
Microsoft Network is prohibited from redistributing this work in any 
form, in whole or in part. Copyright (c) 1995 Jay Thomas
Jay Thomas, jthomas@pluto.njcc.com http://pluto.njcc.com/~jthomas
Portions of this .sig licencsed from Joe Ragosta (docjoe@interramp.com)

Jim Williams <williams@tiac.net> wrote:

>billman@centcon.com (William Rini) wrote:
>> billman@centcon.com   William Rini                      
>> The Syndicate  http://www.centcon.com/~billman/syn.html 

>How much Microsoft stock do you own?

I see.  Join the wild conspiracy theorists who ignore actual facts and
data, or be labelled a Microsoft lackey.   The poster in question has
already stated he has no stock in Microsoft, nor employed by them.
Sadly, for voicing his opinion, which was actually _resarched_, he has
to reassure the twits in advance that he doesn't have a hidden agenda
because he doesn't join in the MS bashers.  

THIS IS PATHETIC.

taob@gate.sinica.edu.tw (Brian Tao) wrote:

>In article <403bl5$45g@data.interserv.net>, William Rini <billman@centcon.com> wrote:
>>
>> It's always covered by some small publication that only the poster
>> subscribes to and it never makes it into the mainstream press.

>    The Financial Post is hardly a small publication, nor is the
>original poster its only subscriber.  When one of the "mainstream"
>media outlets does publish this story (let's pick "Time" magazine),
>you will no doubt discount it as more hype, that "Time" isn't
>qualified to comment on technological matters, and that it is simply
>jumping on the MS-bashing bandwagon.

Shall we talk about Time's capability of reporting on technical
issues?

Brandon
Soleil@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu