Micro

Member
  • Content count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Micro

  1. Micropocalypse - Speak for yourself, not for me! Some of us are legal. Some of us actually are MS Technical Beta testers, not wannabe's. And what does having "not yet released to the public software" have to do with TweakXp's plagarism and fraud ? Your comments make no sense?
  2. Lou I understand the tweaks have been around. Tweaks and their newness is relative to one's experience. As you say, many of us have been using them for quite some time. Many sites quote these same tweaks. But they do so without stealing someone else's article on the subject and claiming it as their own. It's the blatant "cut n paste" along with the "written by", "edited by", and "copyright by" that galls me. The TweakXp article is a COMPLETE cut and paste, all 3 sections INCLUDING the space between paragraphs AND sections, and well as EVERY word are exactly the same. Every single word and space on the TweakXp page was cut n pasted from Ars Technica, not a single letter, punctuation, or space was changed. Compare the 2 pages and you can see this easily. There is NO doubt. THAT IS STEALING, not borrowing. When you build a website by simply copying someone else's text and claiming them as your own, it's wrong. (I won't go into where the code for their product came from. Adults know how to use the "compare" feature in hex editors) When you add your own "written by, edited by, and copyright by" to someone else's work, it becomes criminal in most parts of the world. If you'll check TweakXp's other pages, you can easily find where they were cut and pasted from on the net, as well as TweakXp's "written by and edited by and copyright by" claims.
  3. Please be advised that these tweaks, as well as much of the content on TweakXp, is stolen. :mad: In this case they could not even be bothered to do more than cut n paste. The original can be found here - http://arstechnica.com/tweak/win2k/others/memory-1.html and was posted there in July 2001. Credit, where credit is due, is no too much to ask, is it ?
  4. Not sure what "gulp" means, so here's the background history for newcomers - I see the ability to "change to PID of the OS before setup" has been "rediscovered" with XP. Guys, that's pretty OLD news and has been in use since Win2k in the NT series and since Win95 in the Win9x OS. It's also probably not the "best" way to go. In Win9x, PIDs are in the 100 series, 101, 102, 108, 110, etc. Changing them allowed the OS to be installed and recognized as a full, upgrade, OEM, beta, educational, etc. installation and use the appropriate Product Key (serial number), as they were not interchangable among the different PIDs. PIDs are similar in the way they work in Win2k/XP, as ProductKeys (serial numbers) are "keyed" to be accepted only by certain PIDs. (OEM keys accepted only by OEM versions, etc.) It was soon discovered that changing PIDs was not necessary to make specific product keys work with OS versions they shouldn't work with. In the Win9x OS's, a single DLL makes the "call" to pidgen.dll to verify the product key entered. A simple 2 byte change to the dll "calling" pidgen.dll for verification, allowed ANY serial number to work with any PID (version) of the Win9x OS. (In fact, any key that advanced the cursor across the product key entry screen, including the rt. arrow and space keys, were accepted as valid product key entries.) Now it stands to reason that the same modification to the "call" to pidgen.dll in Win2k/XP would have the same result, any Product Key (serial number) would be accepted as valid for any version. So, end of history lesson. I ask again, does anyone know which exe or dll makes the "call" to pidgen.dll during the setup process, as I have been unable to determine this? :confused Any help gladly accepted.
  5. Anyone know - During Setup, which exe or dll calls to pidgen.dll ?