![]() |
|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
Yes for SP2 you need a 640 PID. In SP1, Windows XP will fail to install on installations of Windows with one of the following product IDs: XXXXX-640-0000356-23XXX and XXXXX-640-2001765-23XXX and the corporate version beginning with FCKGW. Now it looks like any keys without a 640 PID will fail. Using MSkey4in1 (google) you can easily generate a 640 PID. But when using or generating a 640 key make sure you don't fall into the already banned SP1 range.
|
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
what about XXXXX-642-0645805-XXXXX product ids?
my key begins with YVGKQ. seems to work |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
I have heard some people installing with a 642 and 648, Some keys fall in that range. But here is the basis of the keys. (I am using someone elses explanation) If you use pirated or legit xp pro vlks check your product ID and your xp product code will look something like this: 55274-64X-XXXXXXX-XXXXX. Look at the ID as this: AAAAA-BBB-CCCCCCC-DDEEE. A is the product code. BBB is a significant number to the private key. C is the least significant of the private key. DD is the private algorithm key used to verify the 25 digit key. EEE is a random digit that changes each install, this is how activation remains random. BBB-CCCCCCC is your hidden product id, which will be within the above stated range if you use a legit microsoft created key. So some xp keys in the 64x range work just out of random luck but if you do not own a legit XP, the safest bet is to look for MSkey4in1 and gen a new 640 key.
Edit: It seems that issued keys from MS are 640-0005xxx to 640-0006xxx so when using MSkey to gen a key choose Windows XP Pro VLK and set the range as 640-500 to 640-600. Last edited by gabri3l; 07-15-2004 at 07:39. |
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
Here is the already BLOCKED PID Range in Windows XP/Home SP2.
XXXXX-640-0000356-23XXX XXXXX-640-2001765-23XXX XXXXX-640-643718x-23XXX XXXXX-641-309376x-23XXX XXXXX-642-064580x-23XXX XXXXX-642-464364x-23XXX XXXXX-643-334701x-23XXX XXXXX-644-081772x-23XXX XXXXX-644-451265x-23XXX XXXXX-644-874896x-23XXX XXXXX-644-933704x-23XXX XXXXX-644-962396x-23XXX XXXXX-645-833254x-23XXX XXXXX-645-994962x-23XXX XXXXX-646-031843x-23XXX XXXXX-646-104081x-23XXX XXXXX-646-105103x-23XXX XXXXX-647-318838x-23XXX XXXXX-647-592029x-23XXX XXXXX-647-677834x-23XXX XXXXX-648-301691x-23XXX XXXXX-648-819992x-23XXX XXXXX-649-106765x-23XXX XXXXX-649-941392x-23XXX XXXXX-650-292312x-23XXX [courtasy of wzor, iexbeta, n1n0r... and beyond? ]
Last edited by c4p0ne; 07-16-2004 at 15:29. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gosh. That list has a rather striking resemblance to the one posted on Worz.net yesterday.
Regards,
__________________
JMI |
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
|
Which was first posted on iexbeta about 2 weeks ago.
I think it is safe to assume that now everyone here knows what to change their key to, and how to do it.
|
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
And some of us actually have a legitimate key that doesn't need changing.
Sometimes one can even talk M$ into giving a "real" key. And gabri3l, the thread on ieXbeta may have been "started" on May 23, 2004, but the list they show there (as seen above) was posted by qapman on July 15, 2004 with a clickable link to the Worz.net page that was posted on July 14th. Credit should go where credit is due and if c4p0ne got it from there, or some other place, credit for the source should be mentioned. One would assume even Worz.net got it somewhere. Regards,
__________________
JMI |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Microsoft site determines if WinXP is legit. | �XC�PTiON™ | General Discussion | 6 | 09-30-2004 06:19 |