I already know what the technical answer is and it is no. I know several people that are running hacked versions of XP that are always bitching about not being able to apply service packs etc.
I found out a very long time ago that running hacked software is not worth it. For gosh sakes most of us spend more time on our computers than talking to our spouses. Most are willing to invest $200.00 in keeping the wife happy why can’t people invest $200.00 to keep their computer happy. I own a lot of machines and upgrading them is not cheap so I cringe at times on the amount of money I spend on software but it’s part of my yearly budget as software is important to me.
When friends use my computers they are shocked at the number of applications on them and are always asking for a copy of this or that. I will tell you this people are lot less apt to share their software when it’s their registered license that would be getting passed around. So most are shocked when I tell them everything is legitimately registered.
They always ask why. Most companies allow a 1 week to 1 month trial period and if the software is getting used on a regular basis when that trial period expires I pony up the cash. Case in point Microsoft was very smart when the released their student edition of Office which allows up to 3 installations of the software along with affordable pricing.
To get back to the original question I would say no don’t allow them to update. This may shock some and I suppose the majority of computer users in 3rd world countries would have vulnerable machines. [Slashdot] [DSLReports]
I believe that you should be able to install a purchased OS on more than just one of your own P.C.’s… After all if Microsoft is that crafty they would have an easier time registering my software to me on more than one P.C.> verses trying to keep me from hacking the second copy… I bought it and putting it on 2 of MY OWN P.C.’s should be well within the legal guidelines of the EULA… Don’t they have enough money and market?
I agree with previous posters, I’d say that running hacked software is indeed worth it. It might take a bit of know-how but the time required to master how to install a ServicePack on Windows XP is always less than it takes to earn the money required to buy the product.
Plus there are guides, pre-cracked SP versions, slipstreamed and cracked XP ISOs, keygenerators (that work), keychangers, etc …
Don’t be so righteous, I’m sure you do your fair share of jaywalking. It sounds to me like you’r protecting your self-image by being appearing a “good person” in this case. Makes me suspicious. Hmmm.
I agree with previous posters, I’d say that running hacked software is indeed worth it. It might take a bit of know-how but the time required to master how to install a ServicePack on Windows XP is always less than it takes to earn the money required to buy the product.
Plus there are guides, pre-cracked SP versions, slipstreamed and cracked XP ISOs, keygenerators (that work), keychangers, etc …
Don’t be so righteous, I’m sure you do your fair share of jaywalking. It sounds to me like you’r protecting your self-image by being appearing a “good person” in this case. Makes me suspicious. Hmmm.
Most are not smart enough to change thier banned numbers, programs to generate new numbers are available. I guess most want everything done for them. A lot of people will continue to suffer from thier own ignorance, Oh well. Cant hold everyone’s hand
I can update my windows XP. it just a myth. if the cracker is good it can produce good version of software which work as original.
I know microsoft now trying to make it harder.