|
|
|
|
Windows Secrets Newsletter • Issue 114 • 2007-07-05 • Circulation: over 270,000 |
|
Contents INTRODUCTION: SkipRearm doesn't work, activation still broken TOP STORY: Epson's claims of cheaper ink are empty KNOWN ISSUES: Microsoft owns up to Vista Ultimate letdown WACKY WEB WEEK: Windows Live finds more than you think INSIDER TRICKS: You have ways to ferret out running services WOODY'S WINDOWS: SyncToy — free file sync for XP and Vista PERIMETER SCAN: Experts debate claims of "undetectable malware" YOUR SUBSCRIPTION: How to change your address or unsubscribe |
|
For links to every topic in this issue, scroll down to the
Index |
|
ADS
|
|
INTRODUCTION SkipRearm doesn't work, activation still broken
Vista activation deadline affected by system clock Since my original article appeared, some readers and blogs reported that they could duplicate the results of changing the SkipRearm value in the Registry. Others found no effect on Vista's activation deadline. My continued tests have convinced me that SkipRearm cannot be used to extend Vista's deadline. Instead, the results indicate that Vista has something I call "defensive mode." In this mode, Vista changes its activation deadline if a PC's system clock is changed. Try the following steps on a fresh copy of Windows Vista: Step 1. Install Vista on a clean hard drive. Step 2. When prompted for the correct time by Vista, set the clock back at least a few minutes from the original time held by the system clock. Or set the clock back at any point after you've installed Vista. Step 3. Open a command window with admin privileges. To do this in Vista, click the Start button, enter cmd in the Search box, and press Ctrl+Shift+Enter. If you're asked for a username and password, enter the ones that log you into your domain. At the command prompt, type slmgr -dli and press Enter. This command, which can require as long as one minute to process, displays Vista's license information. Note the number of minutes remaining before Vista's activation deadline. It's a maximum of 43,200 minutes (30 days) on a new installation. Type exit and press Enter to close the command window. Step 4. Reboot the PC, then repeat step 3 to determine the new number of minutes remaining. On the PC's we've tested, Vista's activation deadline has been pushed back a seemingly random amount of time by this procedure. We've seen changes of as much as 303 minutes (more than 5 hours). The process has nothing to do with the SkipRearm key in the Registry and doesn't allow SkipRearm to push the deadline back indefinitely. This means dishonest PC sellers can't use SkipRearm to create PCs that look activated but aren't, as I had feared. In our extensive tests of Vista, which I worked on with WindowsSecrets.com program director Brent Scheffler and associate editor Scott Dunn, we believed that the rollback of the activation deadline we saw was being caused by SkipRearm. We repeatedly wiped different PCs clean, installed Vista (and reset the clock each time), tweaked the SkipRearm key, and then rebooted. In most cases, after the Registry change and the reboot, the deadline shifted all the way back to 43,200 minutes because our latest clean install of Vista was only a few minutes old. We now believe that Vista's "defensive mode" changes the deadline, not SkipRearm's value in the Registry. Vista seems to have built-in defenses against a user setting a PC's clock, say, 10 years into the future, installing Vista, and then changing the clock back to the present to get more than the official 30-day activation period. When Vista notices that the clock has changed, it saves information about the original time and the new time upon shutdown. Vista then rewrites the activation deadline to preserve what's left of the 30-day grace period. Since Vista cannot know how long a PC will be shut down before it's booted up again, the operating system appears to be programmed to add a random amount of time to the deadline. The additional minutes are apparently intended to make sure the user gets the full 30-day grace period, without the reboot time counting against it. That's very considerate of the developers who coded this feature into Vista. Never mind, Vista activation cracks are everywhere At the time of my original findings, I considered the SkipRearm side-effect to be a glitch, a temporary programming error that would eventually be reduced to a footnote by some Microsoft corrective patch. As it turns out, the SkipRearm value in the Registry truly is benign, but not because of anything Microsoft has done. Instead, hackers have found that Vista's activation mechanism is full of holes. A query in any search engine on vista activation crack reveals numerous successful breaches of Microsoft's defenses. These range from downloadable executables that effectively stop Vista's countdown timer to brute-force algorithms that rapidly enter 25-digit license keys at random until a legitimate one is found. (I'm not linking to these techniques because I don't recommend that anyone use them. But it's indisputable that they're out there.) Once again, Microsoft has launched a copy-protection system that is a breeze for hackers to break, while causing headaches for honest, paid-up buyers. To deploy Vista, large companies are exhorted to administer cumbersome license systems, such as Microsoft's Key Management Service (KMS) server. Meanwhile, hackers publish spoofed software that easily emulates such servers, as reported by Gregg Keizer in an InformationWeek article. We can't do much about Microsoft's executive decisions now. But we can continue to educate ourselves about Microsoft Windows and its foibles. Fortunately, all of the other tricks we've recently printed about Windows Vista still work just fine: • Vista Upgrade accepts itself as a qualifying version. Developers within Microsoft decided that the cheaper, "upgrade" version of Vista would install over itself, eliminating the need for users to buy the more expensive, "full" version. I reported this in a Feb. 1 story. • Use Vista without activation for 120 days. Far from being limited to a 30-day grace period, the Vista team built into the new operating system a simple command that anyone can use to push the deadline back to 120 days. I published the technique in a Feb. 15 article. I'll keep digging up the secrets of Windows for you and publishing them here, with your help and the assistance of my talented co-workers. I won't always get the story right the first time out, but I promise you that I'll always keep trying. Brian Livingston is editorial director of WindowsSecrets.com and the co-author of Windows Vista Secrets and 10 other books. |
|
ADS
|
|
TOP STORY Epson's claims of cheaper ink are empty
Epson-commissioned study dwells on ink efficiency In a press release dated June 2007, Epson announced results of a study it commissioned from TÜV Rheinland, an independent certification body. Epson trumpeted the study, saying single-ink cartridges were more efficient than those holding multiple colors of inks. "On average the multi-ink systems used less than 60% of the ink before the cartridge had to be replaced, this compares to an average of 82% for the individual ink systems tested," according to the press release. The study printed photos that were selected by focus groups, as well as the kind of business document typically output by home offices. Epson's press release acknowledged that the documents, such as a presentation using a corporate template, tended to exhaust one color more than others. Running out of one color makes a multi-color cartridge unusable, even though the other colors in the cartridge may still have plenty of ink. The TÜV study included printers from Hewlett-Packard, Canon, Brother, Lexmark, Epson, and Kodak. A summary of the report states that Kodak's EasyShare model, which uses a multi-color cartridge, consumed less than 40% of each cartridge's ink before becoming unusable. Models by Epson and HP, which have separate cartridges for each color, by contrast, had "ink efficiency" levels near 80%. Ink capacity was determined by comparing the weight of cartridges when they were full versus when a printer declared them exhausted. "Now, as well as being cost competitive in the market, Epson's individual ink cartridge system offers customers higher levels of consistency and efficiency," states Rob Clark, Director of Consumer Inkjet Business for Epson Europe in the press release. Oddly, despite repeated requests, I was unable to obtain from Epson a copy of the study. Finally, a summary of the study was posted on July 2 at the TÜV Web site on a Efficient Printers and Printing Consumables page. (The 1.87MB PDF summary is available from a link on that page under the heading Further Topics.) My own research indicates that "ink efficiency" isn't everything. If you want the lowest cost per page, a single cartridge that delivers multiple colors may be the winner. Kodak-sponsored study touts cost per page Just a month before Epson's announcement, Kodak issued its own press release. This statement drew attention to a study the company had commissioned from third-party testing lab QualityLogic. Unlike the TÜV Rheinland study, the QualityLogic study reported the number of pages (the "yield") ink cartridges could produce when printing industry-standard 8.5" x 11" monochrome and color test documents and 4" x 6" color photos. A PDF of the complete study is available on the QualityLogic Web site. The QualityLogic study does not include price information. However, Kodak ran the numbers itself, dividing the cost of the various printers' cartridges into the number of pages that were produced. Kodak's conclusions are the opposite of Epson's. The results show that the Kodak Easyshare ink cartridges delivered the lowest cost per page or photo, while Epson and Lexmark cartridges resulted in much higher costs. Here at WindowsSecrets.com, I analyzed the QualityLogic data for our readers. I first searched the Web for real-world prices of ink cartridges. I then used my own approach to calculate the cost per page from QualityLogic's yield figures. I found that my cost results were nearly identical to the figures claimed by Kodak. (only in a few cases did the figures diverge by more than one cent per page). The table below shows Kodak's cost-per-page calculations, which I double-checked. Based on QualityLogic's yield figures, and the street price of each printer's cartridges, Kodak's multi-color modules do seem to offer significantly lower cost per page for each document type: COST PER PAGE OR PHOTO (in U.S. cents, sorted by color photo cost)
In my research, the prices of all ink cartridges (except Lexmark) were obtained online from Office Depot. Taxes and shipping charges were ignored, as though all cartridges were picked up in-store. Lexmark cartridges weren't available at Office Depot, and were priced instead at the Staples Web site. I computed the theoretical number of cartridges required to print 10,000 pages or photos, based on QualityLogic's yield numbers, then calculated the resulting cost per page to substantiate Kodak's figures. HP has officially taken issue with the details of the Kodak/QualityLogic study. San Jose Mercury News writer Dean Takahashi has published HP's critique as well as Kodak's rebuttal in his tech blog. Epson's research study: damage control? There are factors other than cost per page, of course, that should be used when evaluating printers. Print quality, paper handling, and product reliability are at least as important as the cost of consumables. But the recent flare-up over cost per page indicates how seriously printer manufacturers take pricing claims. Epson's press release comes just a year after the company put to bed a class-action lawsuit, which is described in a FAQ by the case's claims administrator. Plaintiffs in the suit complained that the printer cartridges reported being out of ink, failing to print, even though a substantial amount of ink remained. Epson denied any wrongdoing and chose to settle the case out of court. The company may be eager to draw attention away from the Kodak-contracted study and convince customers that the cost of its consumables is a good deal. Although the Epson press release specifically calls attention to the "ecological advantages" of single-ink cartridges, the clear message is that Epson's single-ink system will save consumers ink and, as a result, money. But Epson's TÜV study didn't look at cost. The Kodak/QualityLogic data indicates that packing multiple colors into a single cartridge can result in a lower cost per printed page than single-color cartridges. Until other studies validate or dispute these findings, Epson's claims must be viewed with skepticism. Scott Dunn is associate editor of the Windows Secrets Newsletter. He is also a contributing editor of PC World Magazine, where he has written a monthly column since 1992, and co-author of 101 Windows Tips & Tricks (Peachpit) with Jesse Berst and Charles Bermant. |
|
KNOWN ISSUES Microsoft owns up to Vista Ultimate letdown By Scott Dunn As reported last week, Microsoft's Vista Ultimate team has been missing in action when it comes to supplying the "Ultimate Extras" that were promised back in January for the new OS. But, since our June 28 story appeared, the team has finally broken its silence, making its first statement since Mar. 13. Ultimate team apologizes, breaking long silence My article on the unkept promise of Vista Ultimate Extras was followed up by interviews in ComputerWorld and elsewhere. Soon thereafter, the Vista Ultimate team finally commented on its failure to deliver any of the promised Extras. The statement by Barry Goffe, director of Vista Ultimate, on the Windows Ultimate Web site says:
Microsoft rescinds WGA requirement for critical patch A number of readers attempted to fix the Svchost.exe problem described in our June 21 issue by downloading the update described in Microsoft Knowledge Base article 927891. Many of them, including Holly Vincent, discovered that Microsoft was requiring them to first install and run the Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) utility. An earlier version of this intrusive and error-prone tool was denounced by editorial director Brian Livingston as spyware one year ago. Holly writes:
The Svchost.exe patch can now be downloaded and installed without having to install WGA. Thanks to all the readers whose complaints made Microsoft correct the situation. How to check Windows Update's version number I gave instructions in the June 28 issue on checking Windows Update's version number. A few readers wanted to know if they needed to check the version number of other files with similar names. The answer is no — you only need to check the version of Wuaueng.dll (not Wuaueng1.dll or any other file). Reader Peter Vanica had a related problem:
|
|
EDITOR'S BOOKSHELF
|
|
WACKY WEB WEEK Windows Live finds more than you think
|
|
YOUR SUBSCRIPTION The Windows Secrets Newsletter is published weekly on the 1st through 4th Thursdays of each month, plus occasional news updates. We skip an issue on any 5th Thursday that occurs, plus Thanksgiving Week and the last two weeks of August and December. Publisher: WindowsSecrets.com LLC, Attn.: #120 Editor, 1700 7th Ave., Suite 116, Seattle, WA 98101-1323 USA. Vendors, please send no unsolicited packages to this address (readers' letters are fine). Editorial Director: Brian Livingston. Editor-at-Large: Fred Langa. Associate Editor: Scott Dunn. Contributing Editors: Susan Bradley, Mark Edwards, Woody Leonhard, Chris Mosby, Ryan Russell. Research Director: Vickie Stevens. Program Director: Brent Scheffler. Trademarks: Microsoft and Windows are registered trademarks of Microsoft Corporation. The Windows Secrets series of books is published by Wiley Publishing Inc. The Windows Secrets Newsletter, WindowsSecrets.com, LangaList, LangaList Plus, WinFind, Security Baseline, Patch Watch, Perimeter Scan, Wacky Web Week, the Logo Design (W, S or road, and Star), and the slogan Everything Microsoft Forgot to Mention all are trademarks and service marks of WindowsSecrets.com LLC. All other marks are the trademarks or service marks of their respective owners. HOW TO SUBSCRIBE: Anyone may subscribe to this newsletter by visiting our free signup page. WE GUARANTEE YOUR PRIVACY: 1. We will never sell, rent, or give away your address to any outside party, ever. 2. We will never send you any unrequested e-mail, besides newsletter updates. 3. All unsubscribe requests are honored immediately, period. Privacy policy HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE: To unsubscribe from the Windows Secrets Newsletter,
|
