If you're on an Windows XP or Vista box and live in the U.S...

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:op.vsvckfcpeav7ka at steve-laptop...
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 18:02:05 -0400, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com> 
> wrote:
>
>> Given that the other posts list XP with having 23:00 on the day before 
>> rather
>> than at 00:00 for the dates in the middle, it looks like XP has the same
>> behavior as XP. However, it looks like whatever time zone you have your
>> computer in (if it's really the same as New York, it would Eastern 
>> Daylight
>> Time at the moment) is not actually EST/EDT proper (either that or the 
>> two
>> other posts with XP are on SP3 while you're on SP2 and changes were made 
>> in
>> SP3 which affect the Windows functions being called). Glancing at the 
>> list of
>> Windows time zones though, I don't see any cities which would currently 
>> would
>> be in normal Eastern time but would have been in a slightly different 
>> time
>> zone (e.g. no DST) prior to 2007. I _thought_ that some of Indiana was 
>> that
>> way, but if so, they didn't get a special time zone for it in Windows.
>
> IIRC, there was a large problem when the time zone changes were enacted 
> for XP.  I remember originally Microsoft was NOT going to update XP unless 
> you wanted to pay them some ridiculous amount (something like $10k) for a 
> patch.  However, there were numerous tools that could be used to edit the 
> time zone information.
>
> So they eventually did update XP (must be they got raided by the common 
> sense police).  I would highly suspect that Nick's system isn't updated 
> since it's at SP2 (I'm pretty sure the original SP2 was pre- the timezone 
> changes) and Microsoft typically stops releasing patches for an older 
> service pack when a new one comes out.
>
> Nick, you really should update to SP3, there literally is no down side, 
> except the time it takes to update, and then apply the subsequent patches 
> that have been released since SP3.
>

Hypothetically speaking, if a person was on an unauthorized version of XP 
SP2, then they would be blocked from installing SP3 (since the SP3 update 
requires validation that it's a legitimate copy of XP). Since MS no longer 
offers legitimate copies of XP and the Windows licenses are 
non-transferable, such an immoral person would, as far as I'm aware, be 
stuck with SP2.

Hypothetically speaking, of course.