Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.comp.microsoft.windows > #1181 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-02-20 16:33 +0000 |
| Last post | 2022-02-22 10:30 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 166 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.microsoft.windows
If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-20 16:33 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2022-02-20 16:38 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-20 16:58 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-20 12:09 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch> - 2022-02-20 13:05 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-20 20:37 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch> - 2022-02-20 21:38 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-21 04:16 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-21 04:38 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> - 2022-02-21 08:05 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-21 08:38 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> - 2022-02-21 08:55 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Wolffan <akwolffan@zoho.com> - 2022-02-21 09:27 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-21 11:32 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> - 2022-02-21 13:25 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-21 15:16 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-22 02:30 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> - 2022-02-22 10:29 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-28 05:44 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-21 15:14 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch> - 2022-02-21 21:16 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-22 05:27 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> - 2022-02-22 10:09 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-22 12:43 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> - 2022-02-22 13:37 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-22 15:01 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch> - 2022-02-22 16:44 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-22 19:36 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch> - 2022-02-22 21:14 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-23 07:58 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> - 2022-02-23 09:01 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-23 09:27 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@R04.CH> - 2022-02-23 03:26 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-22 02:30 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> - 2022-02-22 10:22 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-22 12:43 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-21 15:11 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-21 15:23 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-22 05:32 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2022-02-22 09:37 -0600
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> - 2022-02-22 11:12 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch> - 2022-02-21 21:14 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-22 05:44 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> - 2022-02-22 10:15 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-22 12:43 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> - 2022-02-22 13:39 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-22 15:01 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch> - 2022-02-22 16:31 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-22 19:36 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch> - 2022-02-22 21:05 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-23 07:58 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> - 2022-02-23 08:53 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-21 08:38 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-21 15:20 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch> - 2022-02-21 21:17 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-22 05:56 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> - 2022-02-22 10:18 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-22 02:30 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> - 2022-02-22 10:25 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-22 12:43 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> - 2022-02-22 13:53 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-22 15:01 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch> - 2022-02-22 16:31 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-08-13 19:47 +0100
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-08-13 15:08 -0400
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-08-13 22:25 +0100
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-08-13 18:07 -0400
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-08-14 04:32 +0100
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-08-14 06:41 -0400
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-08-14 14:50 +0100
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2022-08-14 10:25 -0400
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-08-14 16:08 +0100
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2022-08-14 12:45 -0400
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Sail Fisherman <sailfisherman@sailfisherman.com> - 2022-08-15 02:07 +0900
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-08-14 12:05 -0400
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> - 2022-08-14 10:30 -0600
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-08-14 12:39 -0400
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? "Rick" <rick@nospam.com> - 2022-08-14 10:26 -0400
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2022-08-14 11:04 -0400
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-08-14 16:28 +0100
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Silvano <Silvano@noncisonopernessuno.it> - 2022-08-14 17:31 +0200
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-08-14 12:05 -0400
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2022-08-14 11:47 -0400
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-08-14 17:22 +0100
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2022-08-14 13:01 -0400
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-08-14 18:26 +0100
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? CDB <bellemarecd@gmail.com> - 2022-08-14 13:31 -0400
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Arlen Holder <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-08-14 22:15 +0100
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2022-08-15 15:07 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2022-08-15 13:09 -0400
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2022-08-15 17:14 -0400
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2022-08-16 18:59 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2022-08-16 18:57 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? YK <youkidding@yahoo.com> - 2022-08-15 11:14 -0400
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2022-08-15 13:18 -0400
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2022-08-15 13:34 -0400
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? YK <youkidding@yahoo.com> - 2022-08-16 17:04 -0400
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-08-14 16:19 +0100
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Arlen Holder <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-08-14 22:16 +0100
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? "Rick" <rick@nospam.com> - 2022-08-17 11:41 -0400
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-08-14 12:05 -0400
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-08-14 17:49 +0100
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@R04.CH> - 2022-08-14 10:31 -0400
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-08-14 12:05 -0400
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2022-08-14 11:09 -0600
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Wolffan <akwolffan@zoho.com> - 2022-02-21 09:23 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> - 2022-02-21 11:12 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-21 11:32 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-21 15:26 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch> - 2022-02-21 21:19 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-20 20:54 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-20 16:06 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2022-02-21 00:28 +0100
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch> - 2022-02-20 21:57 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-21 04:46 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> - 2022-02-21 08:08 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2022-02-21 07:41 +0100
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> - 2022-02-21 08:34 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Peter <occassionally-confused@nospam.co.uk> - 2022-02-22 05:18 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2022-02-22 07:37 +0100
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-22 08:32 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> - 2022-02-22 09:43 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2022-02-23 09:53 +1300
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Peter <occassionally-confused@nospam.co.uk> - 2022-02-23 17:10 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2022-02-24 05:39 +1100
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2022-02-26 11:19 +0100
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Peter <occassionally-confused@nospam.co.uk> - 2022-02-26 16:34 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-26 11:45 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-27 16:03 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? "Jacob Jones" <jkj33@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 07:10 +1100
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-26 16:09 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2022-02-27 10:25 +1300
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-27 10:22 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-28 15:28 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2022-02-23 09:04 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@R04.CH> - 2022-02-23 03:24 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Peter <occassionally-confused@nospam.co.uk> - 2022-02-23 17:05 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2022-02-24 05:34 +1100
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2022-02-23 19:25 +0100
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@R04.CH> - 2022-02-23 16:06 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? allen <allen@spam.com> - 2022-02-23 15:22 -0800
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2022-02-24 10:42 +1300
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Peter <occassionally-confused@nospam.co.uk> - 2022-02-23 16:59 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@R04.CH> - 2022-02-23 12:13 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Peter <occassionally-confused@nospam.co.uk> - 2022-02-23 17:39 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-23 21:58 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2022-02-24 07:19 +0100
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-24 01:33 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-24 17:04 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-24 12:40 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2022-02-21 07:46 +0100
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch> - 2022-02-20 21:47 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2022-02-21 07:43 +0100
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-21 21:39 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-21 04:19 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch> - 2022-02-20 13:01 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-20 20:44 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch> - 2022-02-20 21:42 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-21 04:54 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> - 2022-02-21 08:09 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-21 21:34 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch> - 2022-02-21 21:27 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2022-02-22 08:02 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-22 08:42 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2022-02-22 09:14 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> - 2022-02-22 10:30 -0500
Page 5 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Silvano <Silvano@noncisonopernessuno.it> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-14 17:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tdb4ga$knv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #1730 |
Andy Burnelli hat am 14.08.2022 um 17:28 geschrieben: > Paul wrote: > >> There are all sorts of things you can do to interfere >> with the installation. > > Paul, > I (assert) that I own adult cognitive skills, as do you, and as does Rick. > > As such, I don't mind in the least being wrong on facts (if I am wrong), > because the ONLY thing I care about are the facts being right in the end. > > Hence I must ask YOU this extremely focused and pointed Win11 question: > Q: *Was I wrong to assume Windows 11 _required_ a MS mothership account?* > > Note: I clearly _understood_ Rick saying it does not; but he didn't clarify > (yet) how he managed to do that, nor if he's using an enterprise edition. > > Does Windows 11 Home _require_ a mothership account for full functionality? > Or not? > -- > If yes, then the question asked in this thread is very important. > If no, then the question asked in this thread is instantly mooted. I think Windows 11 home does require a M$ account or it won't work.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-14 12:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <140820221205411197%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #1731 |
In article <tdb4ga$knv$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Silvano <Silvano@noncisonopernessuno.it> wrote: > I think Windows 11 home does require a M$ account or it won't work. correct, although there is a way around that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-14 11:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <tdb5dm$11ms$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #1730 |
On 8/14/2022 11:28 AM, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Paul wrote:
>
>> There are all sorts of things you can do to interfere
>> with the installation.
>
> Paul,
> I (assert) that I own adult cognitive skills, as do you, and as does Rick.
>
> As such, I don't mind in the least being wrong on facts (if I am wrong), because the ONLY thing I care about are the facts being right in the end.
>
> Hence I must ask YOU this extremely focused and pointed Win11 question:
> Q: *Was I wrong to assume Windows 11 _required_ a MS mothership account?*
>
> Note: I clearly _understood_ Rick saying it does not; but he didn't clarify (yet) how he managed to do that, nor if he's using an enterprise edition.
>
> Does Windows 11 Home _require_ a mothership account for full functionality?
> Or not?
I'm sure you will find some recipe. Even the latest Rufus appears to be
armed with some editing function for it. There is at least one more method,
not listed there.
https://www.tomshardware.com/how-to/install-windows-11-without-microsoft-account
I would agree, that the MSA could be a requirement, if every copy of
Windows 11 Home used encryption. But that does not seem to be the case.
There is no need to store the recovery key in the MSA account on
the Microsoft server. Nothing else on Home, is a particular excuse
for an account. The encryption recovery key is the only thing
I've heard of which is even remotely an excuse for an MSA.
For any service you attempt to set up, which requires an account,
you will receive the Microsoft login window as a "hint" an MSA is required.
In some cases (yet again), the login window is bogus, and there may be
ways to bypass it and carry out the function desired. I've had at least
one case here, where batting the login window out of the way, allowed
continuing on in spite of it being presented. Just because there is a
login window, does not mean it is always set up to block forward progress.
In some cases, it's merely a side effect of some software you are
using, "attempting to sniff the MSA" and triggering the login.
Paul
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-14 17:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tdb7fi$1u1f$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #1732 |
Paul wrote: >> Does Windows 11 Home _require_ a mothership account for full functionality? >> Or not? > > I'm sure you will find some recipe. Paul, You may not recall, but you and I have tried to work around Microsoft "requirements" and sometimes we won, and sometimes we lost. For example, years ago, when MS started requiring the automatic updates, we fought them tooth and nail and somewhat succeeded (although MS then resorted to those funky files that even a dual-boot to Ubuntu couldn't delete). Eventually, I gave up - and now I let MS update my machine. Notice that it's a _requirement_ that MS update your Win10 Home/Pro machine. Likewise, you and I spend tremendous effort trying to wrestle the "tiled" menus into shape, but we found out soon enough that some of those tiles are binaries, and in the end, as far as I know, both of us lost that battle too. However, the tiled menus are NOT a requirement for full MS functionality. We can easily use WinXP style native Windows 10 cascaded accordion menus. <https://i.postimg.cc/j5K0RL7H/taskbarmenu01.jpg> No cortana search icon Some Microsoft so-called "requirements" we can easily ignore and still have full functionality (e.g., Cortana); but some you really can't (e.g., updates). The history above goes back years, where we "almost" never fail to wrestle control over our machines from Microsoft - but can we do that in Win11 Home? Specifically, how hard/easy it is to just skip the Microsoft Account creation step in Windows 11 Home - and - what functionality is then lost? > Even the latest Rufus appears to be > armed with some editing function for it. There is at least one more method, > not listed there. > https://www.tomshardware.com/how-to/install-windows-11-without-microsoft-account Thanks for that link which, summarized, says: "Maintain only a local account on your Windows 11 PC." "By default, you must have (or create) a Microsoft account in order to install Windows 11 Home (and versions of Pro that are build 22H2 and up)." "there's an easy way to install Windows 11 without using a Microsoft account." "There's a simple trick for using a local account that works on current builds of Windows and involves cutting off Internet at just the right time in the setup process." That sounds good... "However, the upcoming (and currently in preview) build 22H2 is wise to this trick and blocks it, demanding that you reconnect to the Internet before continuing." Drat. "If you have Windows 11 22H2, you'll need to prepare your install disk using Rufus, a process we document further down this page." Now I see _why_ you brought up Rufus (which I have only some familiarity with for when I was debugging Windows BSOD crashes). > I would agree, that the MSA could be a requirement, if every copy of > Windows 11 Home used encryption. But that does not seem to be the case. Hmmmmm... what the heck does that sentence even mean? I'm sure you meant it to mean something to me - but I don't know enough about why encryption is involved at all to understand what it means to me. (see belated epiphany below) > There is no need to store the recovery key in the MSA account on > the Microsoft server. Nothing else on Home, is a particular excuse > for an account. The encryption recovery key is the only thing > I've heard of which is even remotely an excuse for an MSA. Oh. Now I see, belatedly, _why_ you mentioned "encryption". So there's this special need for an encrypted key to be stored on Windows 11 which is a "recovery" key only? And that "recovery key" (whatever that is) is stored on MS servers? In your MSA account? > For any service you attempt to set up, which requires an account, > you will receive the Microsoft login window as a "hint" an MSA is required. If there is a "skip", then I can ignore that hint. If there is not a "skip", then we're in trouble. > In some cases (yet again), the login window is bogus, and there may be > ways to bypass it and carry out the function desired. The keyword is "may", which, I believe may exist - but what is the solution? Even the Toms'Guide article you referenced said MS is getting wise to this. "Another method, which works even with Windows 22H2, involves confusing Windows by entering an email address that, apparently, has been used too many times. This worked for us, but Microsoft could get wise to it." > I've had at least > one case here, where batting the login window out of the way, allowed > continuing on in spite of it being presented. Just because there is a > login window, does not mean it is always set up to block forward progress. > In some cases, it's merely a side effect of some software you are > using, "attempting to sniff the MSA" and triggering the login. Thank you for confirming that the MS account is "required" but that Toms'Guide article shows one possible method, using Rufus, to avoid it. "If you're installing Windows 11 22H2 or newer, you need to use Rufus (or some other method) to create the install disk so that turning off Internet during the setup process allows you to proceed with a local account." Getting back to the original question, it _does_ seem that the mothership tracking account _is_ required (as it can only be removed with extreme effort). Hence the question is valid (now that we've established the facts)... *If other motherships can disable your device, what's to stop MS?* That is, how do we know Microsoft won't disable _our_ Win11 devices too?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-14 13:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <tdb9os$37ahq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1737 |
On 8/14/2022 12:22 PM, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> The keyword is "may", which, I believe may exist - but what is the
> solution?
> Even the Toms'Guide article you referenced said MS is getting wise to this.
> "Another method, which works even with Windows 22H2, involves confusing
> Windows by entering an email address that, apparently, has been used too
> many times. This worked for us, but Microsoft could get wise to it."
I still don't like the terminology people are using in this thread.
The installer attempts to arm-twist the user, into submitting
to an MSA. This is an installer behavior. I had an install going once,
where unplugging the cable did not do anything, and I could not advance
the state machine to the next installer step. These are installer
issues, which may or may not have any "final merit".
Now, at the other end of the spectrum, is how dependent is
the day to day operation of the OS, to the MSA ? Some of the
things the OS attempts to do, may fail, and an error message
could be logged somewhere. This does NOT prevent you
from continuing to play Win32 Tetris. The OS does not shut off
if the SearchIndexer task dies. It marches onward.
There are few mechanisms which will absolutely kill the OS.
There is LSASS and CSRSS, security services where the OS
needs those as the basis of security. If they're tipped
over, the OS will shut down.
The OS is supposed to have a few "tumblers", but anecdotally,
none have been reported in the field. No one has experiences clicking
on something and the OS shut down on them 10usec later.
Getting past the MSA is largely an install time thing.
After that, nobody gives a fuck. Would the Windows Store
depend on an MSA ? Maybe. But then you don't absolutely
need the Windows Store to play win32 Tetris.
Yes, you can install Windows 10-S as a strawman if you like,
but why would you do that, when you can run Windows 10 Pro and
there is no enforcement of grace period ? Nobody says you have
to buy lame ARM hardware, to make life tougher for yourself.
When you buy new device today, you're required to check the
tech news for particular companies that have screwed up MOK
keys and the like. Don't buy any device that comes with
handcuffs, and you'll be fine. Then if you have to bail and
install Linux or Neverware Chromebook, you can.
Paul
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-14 18:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tdbb72$1g87$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #1742 |
Paul wrote: > Getting past the MSA is largely an install time thing. Paul, The goal of this thread is to answer a question which had _never_ been asked before in the entire history of Windows Usenet newsgroups (AFAIK). The _only_ reason this thread "gives a fuck" :) about the MSA in Windows 11 is that if it exists, _then_ Microsoft has the "ability" to do what "other companies" do - which is disable a _lot_ of the functionality of the device if you do not periodically log into that MSA account on Microsoft servers. From what you, Rick, and Zaghadka wrote, we can safely assume the vast majority of people will likely be forced to create a MSA account on Micrsosoft Servers for Windows 11. That's the last we need to talk about the MSA because this thread is not about the need for the MSA other than to establish that it exist in Windows 11. > After that, nobody gives a fuck. This is critical because we have established the MSA is "required" (for most valus of "required" that is). So enough talk about the MSA please. Once you're forced to log into a periodic mothership tracking account... We already know "other companies" can and do disable a vast amount of the functionality of the device if you (purposefully perhaps, as I did) refuse to periodically log into their mothership tracking servers. We _know_ this is a fact that they can do it - and that they do do it. The question here is whether Microsoft can do the same? Remember, Windows is _different_ than (that other operating system). In that "other operating system", almost everything is controlled by the mothership company. But Windows is different. Can Microsoft disable most of functionality like that "other company" does? Will they? > Would the Windows Store > depend on an MSA ? Maybe. Again, this isn't about the MSA once we've established that almost everyone will be "forced" (for some values of force) to periodically log into a Windows 11 mothership tracking account... But... to that point of the Microsoft Store... I do NOT have a Microsoft Account on Windows 10 and I can NOT download many apps from the Microsoft Store... but... I don't care... because... Because... Because... Microsoft isn't like that "other company" where you must download everything from the mothership store... So Windows is different (in that way)... You don't _need_ the mothership store for Windows... > But then you don't absolutely > need the Windows Store to play win32 Tetris. In summary, we've established two facts that we do NOT need to hash further 1. Windows 11 requires periodic login into a mothership tracking account 2. Other companies who require the same can and do "destroy" your device To my knowledge, in decades of being on Windows Usenet newsgroups, this particular question has NEVER been asked - simply because an MSA wasn't required until now... Hence... The ONLY question here is the same now as when this thread started: Q: *Can/will Microsoft unilaterally destroy functionality on Windows 11* *if you (purposefully perhaps) do NOT periodically log into MS servers?*
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | CDB <bellemarecd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-14 13:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <tdbbg4$1k93$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #1745 |
On 8/14/2022 1:26 PM, Andy Burnelli wrote: > In summary, we've established two facts that we do NOT need to hash further > 1. Windows 11 requires periodic login into a mothership tracking account > 2. Other companies who require the same can and do "destroy" your device > > To my knowledge, in decades of being on Windows Usenet newsgroups, this > particular question has NEVER been asked - simply because an MSA wasn't > required until now... > > Hence... > > The ONLY question here is the same now as when this thread started: > Q: *Can/will Microsoft unilaterally destroy functionality on Windows 11* > *if you (purposefully perhaps) do NOT periodically log into MS servers?* What happens if you create the W11 MSA & then never log into it ever again?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arlen Holder <spam@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-14 22:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tdbotg$p4v$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #1746 |
On 14/08/2022 18:31, CDB wrote: > > What happens if you create the W11 MSA & then never log into it ever > again? You won't know what Microsoft is doing with your bank account and passwords that it has harvested.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-15 15:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tddufb.kmg.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #1742 |
Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote: [...] > Getting past the MSA is largely an install time thing. > After that, nobody gives a fuck. Well, actually *Microsoft* gives a fuck, because after a recent Windows 11 update, I *again* got an install-like UI (which enticed you to subscribe to all kinds of services, which I of course declined) which required an MSA to continue. The (full-screen) UI could not be exited and I did not want to force a shutdown. In the end I chose a 'Back'function and *there* it presented the option to continue with a local account. Bottom line: Again more of the familiar Microsoft tricks to say/imply that an MSA is mandatory and again hidden tricks to evade that requirement. FWIW, new (July 27) laptop with Windows 11 Home. 'winver' says: Version 21H2 (OS Build 22000.856) (Let me know if you need more version info (and how to get it) for your Secret Decoder Ring.) [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-15 13:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <tddul5$3na9d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1751 |
On 8/15/2022 11:07 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
> [...]
>
>> Getting past the MSA is largely an install time thing.
>> After that, nobody gives a fuck.
>
> Well, actually *Microsoft* gives a fuck, because after a recent
> Windows 11 update, I *again* got an install-like UI (which enticed you
> to subscribe to all kinds of services, which I of course declined) which
> required an MSA to continue. The (full-screen) UI could not be exited
> and I did not want to force a shutdown. In the end I chose a
> 'Back'function and *there* it presented the option to continue with a
> local account.
>
> Bottom line: Again more of the familiar Microsoft tricks to say/imply
> that an MSA is mandatory and again hidden tricks to evade that
> requirement.
>
> FWIW, new (July 27) laptop with Windows 11 Home. 'winver' says:
>
> Version 21H2 (OS Build 22000.856)
>
> (Let me know if you need more version info (and how to get it) for your
> Secret Decoder Ring.)
control-alt-delete then TaskManager
Run menu : "cmd" to run a command prompt window
tasklist /svc
Survey the scene and pick the most likely culprit.
It may be easier to read the cmd window than watch the
process list in Task manager.
The "extra services" dialog appears on other machines like
that too, but there is a button "try again in three days time"
or the like, so you can be annoyed by it then.
And you *can* turn the machine power off. The journal
on C: is amazing :-)
*******
Alternately, shift-F10 is mentioned as a way to open a Command Prompt.
https://www.ghacks.net/2022/05/13/how-to-bypass-the-microsoft-account-requirement-during-windows-setup/
But I still can't find the name of the item drawing to the screen.
It could be a shell experience of some sort.
*******
https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/windows-10/why-am-i-getting-this-quot-let-s-finish-setting-up-your-device/m-p/1751604
"Let's finish setting up your device"
https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/224690i6D6A60C0F36E131F/image-size/large?v=v2&px=999
You can do it through Notifications, but if that is missing in your
particular version, there's a reg key.
HKCU\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\UserProfileEngagement
ScoobeSystemSettingsEnabled DWORD 0
In Win11, I seem to have one of those keys already, and it's set that way.
Now, even though my Scoobe is set to zero, the notification one is ARMED.
[Picture]
https://i.postimg.cc/RZGdffj3/notifications-w11-engagement.gif
OOBE: Out of box experience
SCOOBE: Second chance out of box experience
Paul
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-15 17:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <tdecuo$3qa2a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1754 |
On 8/15/2022 1:09 PM, Paul wrote:
>
> OOBE: Out of box experience
> SCOOBE: Second chance out of box experience
I was doing Patch Tuesday on the W11Pro setup
and the SCOOBE showed up.
I used Control-Alt-Delete and started Task Manager.
I could see userOOBEBroker.EXE running, but killing
that did not make the pesky dialog go away.
But when I would wave the mouse around the window,
and especially the rectangular button, I could get
a very weak association with
WebExperienceHostApp.EXE
which would be running the javascript files for that dialog.
when I killed that, the window went away.
Paul
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-16 18:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tdh0g0.2as.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #1758 |
Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote: > On 8/15/2022 1:09 PM, Paul wrote: > > > > > OOBE: Out of box experience > > SCOOBE: Second chance out of box experience > > I was doing Patch Tuesday on the W11Pro setup > and the SCOOBE showed up. > > I used Control-Alt-Delete and started Task Manager. > > I could see userOOBEBroker.EXE running, but killing > that did not make the pesky dialog go away. > > But when I would wave the mouse around the window, > and especially the rectangular button, I could get > a very weak association with > > WebExperienceHostApp.EXE > > which would be running the javascript files for that dialog. > > when I killed that, the window went away. Thanks. Next time, I'll be on the lookout for those and similar culprits. "It's MY machine, damn you!"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-16 18:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tdh0ao.2as.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #1754 |
Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote: > On 8/15/2022 11:07 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote: > > Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote: > > [...] > > > >> Getting past the MSA is largely an install time thing. > >> After that, nobody gives a fuck. > > > > Well, actually *Microsoft* gives a fuck, because after a recent > > Windows 11 update, I *again* got an install-like UI (which enticed you > > to subscribe to all kinds of services, which I of course declined) which > > required an MSA to continue. The (full-screen) UI could not be exited > > and I did not want to force a shutdown. In the end I chose a > > 'Back'function and *there* it presented the option to continue with a > > local account. > > > > Bottom line: Again more of the familiar Microsoft tricks to say/imply > > that an MSA is mandatory and again hidden tricks to evade that > > requirement. > > > > FWIW, new (July 27) laptop with Windows 11 Home. 'winver' says: > > > > Version 21H2 (OS Build 22000.856) > > > > (Let me know if you need more version info (and how to get it) for your > > Secret Decoder Ring.) > > control-alt-delete then TaskManager > > Run menu : "cmd" to run a command prompt window > > tasklist /svc > > Survey the scene and pick the most likely culprit. > It may be easier to read the cmd window than watch the > process list in Task manager. Yeah, I probably should have done something like that in order to try to catch and identify the culprit, but the install-like UI caught me by surprise [1] and I thought that they were doing an install all over again, causing me to lose all my copying-of-files/(re)installing-of- software/(re-)configuring-of-software/etc. that I had been doing the last few weeks, so my priority was getting out and saving my stuff, not trying to catch the culprit. [1] Imagine innocent Joe User who is put into this mess by Microsoft, when he just wants to get on with his - rudely interrupted - work! > The "extra services" dialog appears on other machines like > that too, but there is a button "try again in three days time" > or the like, so you can be annoyed by it then. For the install-like UI I got (your term SCOOBE: Second chance out of box experience), there was no "try again in three days time" button. > And you *can* turn the machine power off. The journal > on C: is amazing :-) Yeah, I'm not worried about the journal, I'm worried about Microsoft knowing 'better' and wiping stuff, doing an install, etc.. After all, this is Windows 11, not Real Windows (TM)! :-( > ******* > > Alternately, shift-F10 is mentioned as a way to open a Command Prompt. > > https://www.ghacks.net/2022/05/13/how-to-bypass-the-microsoft-account-requirement-during-windows-setup/ Yeah, that one is in my notes as well. Small problem is that I can't get to those notes when this happened/happens. Catch-22! So next time, I'll have to borrow SWMBO's machine to get to (the backup of) my notes! [...] [Likely culprit covered in your other response.]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | YK <youkidding@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-15 11:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <tddnrn$1je3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #1742 |
On 8/14/2022 1:01 PM, Paul wrote: > Getting past the MSA is largely an install time thing. > After that, nobody gives a fuck. Would the Windows Store > depend on an MSA ? Maybe. But then you don't absolutely > need the Windows Store to play win32 Tetris. What happens to your local Windows 11 operating system if you installed Windows 11 following MSA creation instructions & then some time later you subsequently asked Microsoft to delete the MSA from the Microsoft servers? Does the local Windows 11 get unaffected?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-15 13:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <tddv5l$3ndne$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1752 |
On 8/15/2022 11:14 AM, YK wrote:
> On 8/14/2022 1:01 PM, Paul wrote:
>> Getting past the MSA is largely an install time thing.
>> After that, nobody gives a fuck. Would the Windows Store
>> depend on an MSA ? Maybe. But then you don't absolutely
>> need the Windows Store to play win32 Tetris.
>
> What happens to your local Windows 11 operating system if you installed
> Windows 11 following MSA creation instructions & then some time later you
> subsequently asked Microsoft to delete the MSA from the Microsoft servers?
>
> Does the local Windows 11 get unaffected?
You cannot use the services linked to the old MSA,
so you provide a new MSA if you desire to set up
services again.
I'm sure it is delightfully messy.
If an MSA is actually "removed", why should it
be sitting on an authentication server ? It would
be gone at that point.
I think you are possibly referring to de-registering
an MSA against one machine, while continuing to use the
MSA on other machines. This might be handy if selling
a machine onwards and not wishing to leave MSA details
related to the machine. A clean install removes the physical evidence,
but the logical association of the MSA to the machine, might
still exist on a Microsoft server.
Paul
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-15 13:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <tde038$3nl97$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1752 |
On 8/15/2022 11:14 AM, YK wrote:
> What happens to your local Windows 11 operating system if you installed
> Windows 11 following MSA creation instructions & then some time later you
> subsequently asked Microsoft to delete the MSA from the Microsoft servers?
>
> Does the local Windows 11 get unaffected?
Does the local Windows 11 get unaffected? <=== this statement
The MSA controls some aspects of services the user might be
using. Your ability to access some files on OneDrive may depend
on the MSA.
If you delete the MSA, it means your OneDrive files are now an orphan.
But it does not mean the OS stops working. The kernel keeps
accepting calls, Ring 3 keeps working, and so on. Does the
Calc.App work ? Maybe not, if it somehow checks Windows Store
for updates and happens to use an MSA while interacting. But
your traditional win32 applications (firefox, thunderbird, pan,
photoshop 5, ...) still work. Because they have no fiddly parts
that use an MSA for anything. Maybe if you'd never had an MSA
at all, the Calc.App would have worked, even when checking in
with the Windows Store. (The "never had an MSA" case may be
handled separately from "had an MSA but canceled it".)
But if you again wanted to establish OneDrive file storage,
to a brand-new clean disk area at Microsoft, then you could
get that by providing yet another MSA.
MSA is just as intertwined with modern features on an OS,
as it is "on any SmartPhone". It can affect some Cloud
related Ring3 features -- the Windows Store is a Cloud feature,
an unfortunate Cloud feature. Only testing all these scenarios
by hand, would tell us whether the implementation was correct.
On a SmartPhone, the core OS component (the kernel) could
continue to run, while everything in Ring3 was busted. This
might happen if every Ring3 application was signed or authenticated
using an account. The OS may not be stopped, but the thing
could be a virtual brick in terms of getting anything to run.
It then depends on what fallback features, if any, are coded
into the handling of applications.
Paul
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | YK <youkidding@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-16 17:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <tdh0or$1met$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #1756 |
On 8/15/2022 10:34 AM, Paul wrote: > If you delete the MSA, it means your OneDrive files are now an orphan. > > But it does not mean the OS stops working. What I mean is if you can't stop the MSA from being created at the Windows 11 installation time, maybe you can ask Microsoft to delete the MSA a week or whatever after the Windows 11 installation. That way, there's no MSA. But what will break that you need? If the only things that don't work after MSA deletion are unnecessary Microsoft cloud services such as OneDrive and the Microsoft Store, that would be an overall win for the user to delete the MSA after intallation. What else would stop working on Windows 11 when you have MS delete the MSA?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-14 16:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tdb3pe$aj5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #1725 |
Rick wrote: > I've been using Microsoft 11 for several months and have never logged into > any Microsoft account. First, THANK YOU for responding ON TOPIC! You're a godsend because you are the first who _understood_ the topic. This is EXCELLENT information (if it's true). Unfortunately, I have to ASK OTHERS if it's true because: a. My Win10 does NOT have a MS account b. Every WinS that I converted to Win10 does NOT have a MS account c. But my Win10 desktops are too old to be allowed to install Win11 So I have to ask those of you on Windows 11 Home about this question. Are you _sure_ you were able to set up Windows 11 Home WITHOUT an account? I was "under the impression" that this was now required. Please advise as that is a critically important detail. > In fact, in 25+ years of using Windows-based > computers, I have never even had a Microsoft account. As I recall, when I converted Windows S laptops into Windows 10 Home, I had to "temporarily" _create_ a MS Account, and then I could have it deleted. Is that no longer necessary to first create the account and then delete it for Windows S to be converted into Windows 10 Home nowadays? > My computer works > just fine and I can access all functionality including internet access with > no problems. Good. If this is true, and it may very well _be_ true, that Windows 11 does not _require_ a MS account for full functionality, then this question being asked is moot. Note that I am not in the least worried about the inability to log into and install programs from the Microsoft Store since, IMHO, it's all garbage. For _that_, you "probably" need an account - but - as you stated - you still have _full functionality_ without logging into that MS Store. > > I do have a username and password for accessing my computer locally, but > it's a stretch to call that a Microsoft account. Agreed. A _local_ account is normal. Like in the "olden days" we had a username and a password that was local to the machine. That's fine. > That's more to keep my > computer physically secure against other people in my house. Even when I am > not connected to the internet (if I disable my network connection, for > example) I can still access my computer just fine and access all its > functionality. So I'm not sure what you mean by saying Windows 11 has a > requirement to log onto some mythical Microsoft tracking account. Like you, for my _entire_ experience with Microsoft, I have resisted the requests by Microsoft to _create_ a mothership tracking account. About the only thing you "lose" today, at least with Windows 10, by not having a Microsoft mothership tracking account, AFAIK, is the ability to download "some" apps from the Microsoft Store (but who cares about them?). In my humble experience, there's only garbage (or duplicates) in that MS Store, so you still retain what I'd call "full functionality" without having that login to the Microsoft tracking servers on Windows 10. But it was my understanding that Windows 11 Home _required_ a mothership account? I clearly understand you are saying that it does not. Is that correct? Am I wrong then, to assume that Windows 11 _required_ a mothership account? -- PS: I only care about the facts so if I was wrong all along - just say so.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arlen Holder <spam@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-14 22:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tdbpsm$13bq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #1729 |
On 14/08/2022 16:19, Andy Burnelli wrote: > > > So I have to ask those of you on Windows 11 Home about this question. I use Google Pixel 6a and mount it to with Microsoft Account to access emails on outlook.com. Without Microsoft account you can't get your emails on outlook. You can feel full force of vibrations when your penis is locked on Pixel 6a and connected to Windows 11. It feels very nice when the vibrations flow through your entire body. You just need to balance your body on two legs otherwise you could fall down. https://store.google.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick" <rick@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-17 11:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <tdj27m$1u59$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #1729 |
"Andy Burnelli" wrote in message news:tdb3pe$aj5$1@gioia.aioe.org... > >Rick wrote: > >> I've been using Microsoft 11 for several months and have never logged >> into any Microsoft account. > >First, THANK YOU for responding ON TOPIC! >You're a godsend because you are the first who _understood_ the topic. > >This is EXCELLENT information (if it's true). >Unfortunately, I have to ASK OTHERS if it's true because: >a. My Win10 does NOT have a MS account >b. Every WinS that I converted to Win10 does NOT have a MS account >c. But my Win10 desktops are too old to be allowed to install Win11 > >So I have to ask those of you on Windows 11 Home about this question. >Are you _sure_ you were able to set up Windows 11 Home WITHOUT an account? > >I was "under the impression" that this was now required. >Please advise as that is a critically important detail. > >> In fact, in 25+ years of using Windows-based computers, I have never even >> had a Microsoft account. > >As I recall, when I converted Windows S laptops into Windows 10 Home, I had >to "temporarily" _create_ a MS Account, and then I could have it deleted. > >Is that no longer necessary to first create the account and then delete it >for Windows S to be converted into Windows 10 Home nowadays? > >> My computer works just fine and I can access all functionality including >> internet access with no problems. > >Good. If this is true, and it may very well _be_ true, that Windows 11 does >not _require_ a MS account for full functionality, then this question being >asked is moot. > >Note that I am not in the least worried about the inability to log into and >install programs from the Microsoft Store since, IMHO, it's all garbage. > >For _that_, you "probably" need an account - but - as you stated - you >still have _full functionality_ without logging into that MS Store. > >> >> I do have a username and password for accessing my computer locally, but >> it's a stretch to call that a Microsoft account. > >Agreed. A _local_ account is normal. Like in the "olden days" we had a >username and a password that was local to the machine. That's fine. > >> That's more to keep my computer physically secure against other people >> in my house. Even when I am not connected to the internet (if I disable >> my network connection, for example) I can still access my computer just >> fine and access all its functionality. So I'm not sure what you mean by >> saying Windows 11 has a requirement to log onto some mythical Microsoft >> tracking account. > >Like you, for my _entire_ experience with Microsoft, I have resisted the >requests by Microsoft to _create_ a mothership tracking account. > >About the only thing you "lose" today, at least with Windows 10, by not >having a Microsoft mothership tracking account, AFAIK, is the ability to >download "some" apps from the Microsoft Store (but who cares about them?). > >In my humble experience, there's only garbage (or duplicates) in that MS >Store, so you still retain what I'd call "full functionality" without >having that login to the Microsoft tracking servers on Windows 10. > >But it was my understanding that Windows 11 Home _required_ a mothership >account? > >I clearly understand you are saying that it does not. >Is that correct? > >Am I wrong then, to assume that Windows 11 _required_ a mothership account? Well just to reiterate - I have never had a Microsoft account or needed one to set up any version of Windows on my computers, including Windows 11. I do recall multiple times where they have tried to get me to sign up for the account or made it seem like you HAD to set up the account, but I always just ignored them and found ways around it. I can't remember specifically what I did, but I don't think it involved registry changes or anything like that, unless I'm just mis-remembering. I think you just have to be persistent and essentially say "no". --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.microsoft.windows
csiph-web