(Normally, I wouldn't waste my time responding to such foolishness, but today I'll make an exception...;))
"Because having Yet Another Hole punched in the firewall just so the OS maker can keep tabs on what I do, and worrying that an update or a feature may not be available because a bug or a smiliar CD Key may make them think that I somehow pirated their OS?"
I really have no idea what you're talking about, probably because I not only use a hardware firewall, but I also use a software firewall that is much more vigorous than the one shipped with XP, and in fact I *disable* the XP software firewall by default. The software firewall I use catches far more than the XP firewall ever did--which is why I use it (obviously.) The XP firewall is strictly light-weight. But anyway:
Incidents of Microsoft software trying to "punch holes" in my system firewalls to "keep tabs" on what I do:
0 (that's "zero," if you are not mathematically inclined.)
Next, in five years I've yet to have a single problem with XP validation or WGA, and furthermore can assure you that what it does is far more involved than merely "reading a CD key." It probably hasn't crossed your mind, but if WGA wasn't far more involved than that there'd be little reason for Microsoft to deploy it, as it would be *so easy* to defeat. In fact, the program is designed not to base its results on merely a CD Key, and so on--very much like Windows Validation for XP.
Besides, although you talk about "bugs" and "messed up CD keys" you obviously are unaware of the purpose of WGA--and that is to stop the wholesale piracy of Windows by shops large and small who sell hardware platforms to their customers. I suppose it's because you don't know what WGA is that you misconstrue so badly what it does.
Apple makes its money on the hardware it sells, and as a result Apple doesn't have to worry about small computer stores building Macs and pirating its OSes in a bundle, does it? Food for thought.
"Yuck."
Yuck, indeed. If the WGA program operated as you believe it does, I wouldn't like it, either. But here's the clincher--neither would Microsoft.
"Seriously - my Macintosh doesn't do this at all, and my Linux boxes were installed from .iso files that I legally and freely downloaded."
Well, the news for you might be that the OS Apple supplies you for your Mac will *only run* on a box that Apple manufactures and sells. Again, Apple doesn't worry about computer shops doing wholesale piracy of its software because Apple would sue the pants off of any computer shop in the world that deigned to build a Mac clone capable of running the Mac OS. Also, now that the MacIntosh has gone MacIntel, you do know, don't you, that Apple doesn't allow it's OSes to run on any x86 machine Apple doesn't make--whether that machine is compatible or not?
What Apple does is to tie its OS to Apple hardware, whereas, since Microsoft doesn't make its own line of computers, Microsoft doesn't tie its OSes to any particular brand of x86 computer--but Microsoft, unlike Apple, goes to great lengths to support them *all.*
Hopefully, by now you'll be starting to get a glimmer of why and how things are done differently on your Mac than they are by Microsoft.
Last, btw, I can download and run the very same .iso Linux programs that you can, and pay for them the very same thing that you do. And guess what? The WGA program only concerns itself with Windows--doesn't give a damn about your Linux installs, illegal or no.
"It must really suck to be forced to subject one's personal data and personal property to the capricious whims of a large software company."
Excuse me while I chuckle, but are you talking about Apple or about Microsoft? It seems to me that by carefully circumscribing the machines that OSX will run on, Apple is no less "guilty" of such "capricious whims." And honestly, I seriously doubt that either Apple or Microsoft would talk of their initiatives to control where and when their OSes can run as "capricious whims." There's as much thought put behind Apple's only allowing you to run OSX on an Apple machine as their is behind Microsoft wanting you to run a legitimate copy of its OS on the machine of your choice.
"Okay, I can understand the need of a given company to prevent piracy of their products, but seriously... this method is rather intrusive (and costly in terms of bandwidth for those overseas who get taxed for it)."
Contrasted side by side, I think the Microsoft model is far less intrusive than the Apple model. Just try running your licensed copy of OSX x86 on a not-made-by-Apple x86 box and you'll see what I mean. Apple will shake its fingers and say, "Uh-uh--gotcha'! No can do!"
"No way, folks... I may never play HalfLife2 and such (though Quake4 runs just fine on my Mac...), but at least I know that no one is rummaging through my computer and leaving open potential holes for crakcers and script kiddies to wriggle in through."
Good grief, with all the security holes found of late in the Mac OS (OS X, specifically), and amid all of the patches Apple has released to plug those wholes just recently, I'm surprised you can say this with a straight face. CNET has carried many stories about that, FYI. And, the only thing I can think you're talking about when you use the word "rummaging" is the automatic Windows Update software that scans your OS system to see what needs updating and what doesn't. Well, if you find that "intrusive" then I can share with you that there are other pages on the Microsoft site which allow you to manually download the update files that you want and to install them locally yourself, sans the "rummaging" you think is being done by the auto-update software.
I don't need to waste my time doing that, however, since I "trust" the auto-update software to do its job, and have found over the years that it does that job very well. But to each his own, of course.
Just goes to show that things are nowhere near as black & white as you might like to think they are, doesn't it?
Back in 2003 I when got hit by the Blaster Worm , I realized that Windows was not for me, and I started finding a replacement. Macs weren't for me , because I hated their centralized monopolistic ways, too expensive for what you get, even the designs were funky looking to my taste.
After thousand of hours, testing Linux distributions I found my ideal Operating System, plus many other excelent ones. It took a lot of effort, but I purchased several small hard drives at $2.00 and that was all it took to test every distro I found, close to 100. It was fun,at the begining wasn't easy but I made it. Thanks to the guy that wrote the Blaster, I am free, Microsoft free. Every time a new Linux Distro that looks interesting is released I take the time to download and I give it a try. Even old machines can run certain versions of Linux.
By buying the software we gave microsoft the power we the consumers create these mounsters, we feed them. Of course they will rule and control us.
I would have no problem with the WGA software - if it only asked to installed on my system once and then never bothered me again!
WGA should be installed once on every computer - if it passes, then the user should never be aware of WGA ever! It's not like a legitimate copy of Windows is suddenly going to turn into an illegitimate copy.
WGA is a great idea, and I think MS does have a right to run it - but they can't require us to download this every month, and consider the update a "critical update". Thats pathetic!
I agree that WGA should check once and then never again, except perhaps in the SMALL chance that WGA needs to be updated because someone figures a way around it.
Oh wait: That won't work either. Why? Because it is almost CERTAIN someone will figure out how to get around it.
All of this verification ******** is exactly that: ********, because ANY verification system can be gotten around by someone who is smart enough.
Companies, give up on verification systems, and just start selling your software at a REASONABLE price.
Windows Vista should be ONLY 150 dollars for the Ultimate version, 100 for the next step down, and 50 for the next. Price your stuff reasonably, and people will be WILLING to pay for it!
Operating systems are like the alphabet.....except this alphabet is NEVER, EVER finished. It is constantly updated (because of all the flaws) and older editions eventually lose support because they are OLD! This is to force you to buy a new operating system every 5 years or so........what a money maker for Microsoft! If you take a look each time there's a "New" Windows it gets even more bloated! Geez, just give me something that's simple and works well! If we can base our entire language on just 26 letters......can't we get one simple permanent working operating system without a lot of bells and whistles???? Our alphabet is free and easy to use.....why not our computer operating systems? After all, the computer now drives a lot of our economy through online commerce.....why mess up a good thing with a lot of complications just so Microsoft can make a major fortune every 2 to 5 years?
Video games run the computer business, not e-commerce...sure it make look that way on paper, but the fact of the matter is that today's PCs are not designed to run Word, Office, Excel, or Adobe Photoshop...they are designed to run games like San Andreas, Doom 3, Quake 4, Call of Duty 2...just look at your specs for Word...and Windows XP...then grab a video game box and look at the system requirements for the game. As long as there are gamers there will always be a newer version of the OS and it will always cost more to make...hell Vista is designed more for gamers than all of you people wish to accept....Just look at Vista Ultimate....it has a gaming slider for gamers....and is even recommended for gamers.
I agree as a owner of Windows XP and user I should not be forced to have a beta product without my knownlege on my pc.
I think MS should be force to remove all beta software from Windows update also. I understand Microsoft has the right to protect itself but installing flaw beta software without informing users is wrong.
It seems MS is now just a beta company all products are in beta with no release date for anything coming down the road.
The screens displayed when WGAP's analysis THINKS it has detected a POSSIBLE illegitimate copy, actually declare that the copy is not genuine.
It effectively calls you a thief, and it does so in writing.
That is libel.
It displays the message for the world to see: one's supervisors, one's clients, one's family, friends, etc.
Anyone who is watching the computer screen or a presentation when the WGAP screen pops-up will infer that you are running with illegitimate software...therefore, the reasonable conclusion is that you stole it.
Surely the computer wouldn't say it unless it was true, right?
That on-screen accusation could do incredible damage to one's career, destroy a business deal, damage a long-standing business relationship, give your children a reason to think you're dishonest, and so on.
Here's another scenario...Let's assume you're the one responsible for setting up the boss' notebook computer. Think of just how upset your boss would be if he or she was giving a Power-Point presentation to the corporate executives, and the WGAP screen popped-up when it shouldn't have. Think your careeer would survive that unscathed even if you explained that the program was in error? I doubt it.
That's why Windows 2000 and Win 98 are still the top Windows
Sure, there is WGA for Windows 98SE and Win 2000, but they are nowhere as obtrusive as that on Windows XP.
You just need to validate when downloading specific patches and updates (DirectX 9 is an example). It's not a problem for us as all our Windows are licensed.
Unlike XP WGA, WGA in Win98 and Win2000 doesn't live in your machine and make a pest of itself and send Microsoft data daily.
So, is it any wonder that many people would rather be "Dinosaurs" using five year old software?
Microsoft's biggest competitors, aren't the Mac or even Linux. It's the millions of corporate seats that refuse to budge from Windows 2000 and Windows 98SE. These guys would rather shift to a non-MS OS than be forced to upgrade to XP and Vista if it means daily WGA checks.
If Microsoft really wants "to boost the number of Windows users who actually pay for the operating system", all they need to do is lower the price of the OS to a reasonable level.
People don't steal software to be without support because they want to. Everyone would love to own a legit copy of XP for all of thier systems, but some (mostly 3rd world countries and students) simply don't have the money for something that is now percieved as a "must have".
What happens when people percieve that they "must have" something (whether they really must have it or not is not the issue) and they cannot afford it? They "acquire" it.
The more affordable Windows becomes, the more people will buy it.
Its like the Student Teacher version of Office. If you lie, you can get it for $50 per PC. But, why should you have to lie? Why not make all Standard Office licenses $50?
That rasies the question of why businesses get charged more for the same software. Do they get more tech support for thier version of Office? No. Do they get more features in Office Standard for the money? No.
It can't be because businesses use it to make money....people use it for that at home. And, what of the businesses that aren;t making money or that are not-for-profit?
So why do businesses get charged more? Simple. It's a tax on businesses levied by Microsoft.
But, I digress.....
If MS want more paid users, make the products more affordable.
In the ealry 1990s, there were expensive computers and a cheap OS: Win 3.x, then Windows 95, then Windows 98.
Then they released Windows NT at a premium price, then Win NT 4.0, then Windows 2000.
Then they decided to blend the two product lines, and started selling a network-crippled version: Windows XP Home for the same price as the former number desktop OS - Windows 98.
Nevermind that on the network front, Windows 98 could be updated to do more things than Windows XP Home.
Did you want the full networking capabilities of Windows 98 in Windows XP? Sure, you can have it...with XP Professional--at twice the price.
Now, Microsoft is saying that he version of Vista that is shipping OEM is really just the basic system, but if you want the same features that used to be in the most basic of the older OS...there's Vista Premium, at price premiums 100-200% above the old Windows 98, which had most of the features to begin with.
While the price of PC hardware has been going down, the price of Microsoft Operating systems and applications have been pushed upwards through segmentation. The old feature sets are no longer available in the "basic" packages, which quite strangely are the price as the older "complete versions." If you wnat the old feature sets, Microsoft says, get the "premium versions."
Sounds like buying a car advertised as being the same price as the old one....but finding out that things like tires, windows, and the engine are now "optional items."
Jim, you have a good point. Microsoft will have less of a problem with piracy if they adjust their prices in line with the adjustments in hardware prices.
You are correct in noting that most people would purchase it if it were priced at a reasonable level, and it's crazy how cheap the Dells and Hps are getting this stuff for. I'm fed up with MS too (see my other post here), but to set the record straight, MS, like Apple, sells software at reduced prices to students (either to be nice or to get them hooked on using their software for life). One thing though, and why I used to support MS, is they actually DO give away millions in free software to non-profits (valid 501c non-profits)for basically the cost of shipping the CDs. And Gates gives away billions to charities too. There's definitely more going on here than simple price-gouging, and even if it was, say $peanuts to buy and everyone in the US was legit, they would still be installing WGA here. Why? Let's dig deeper. Now while I'm sure that people have copied windows a million times over, some to steal it, there are probably just as many legitmate paid-for versions that simply don't match the code on the COA sticker anymore, for all sorts of reasons, mainly repairs, upgrades, and reinstalls. I agree with other posters here who say they have more licenses than machines running them. Face it, 99% of all computers running Windows in the US were bought with it already installed by the big OEMS like Dell, Hp, etc. Therefore, the number of people that actually need to buy, let alone steal, windows is very low (in the US and major countries at least). And a lot of well-meaning computer techs or friends will use the an install CD to repair a broken or infected windows HD that does not match the sticker on the side because it is easier, faster or, simply not loaded up with the other OEM tweaks that make it bloated or unstable. This might not be technically correct license-wise, but monetarily it is a wash. It doesn't mean that the end-user never paid for windows or is using malware or stolen software. (People please don't pipe in here about ways to reactivate or change keys, etc,) This is simply MS trying to find a way to make anti-piracy work for their push into the potentially massive third world market. It was reported that MS will be 'leasing' a stripped down windows to 3rd world countries on a pay-as-you-go system where it becomes disabled when the pre-pay account goes dry. Now that MS is going "Live" and eventually plans on making Windows run live as a service subscription lease, it is clear that to control these systems you need some mechanism where the computer checks in often so it can be turned on, tweaked, or locked out. I agree with the article and believe MS is using its huge Xp customer base as unwitting test subjects "guinea-pigs" for some of the beginnings of this technology, some of which is already in Vista. I don't like the fact that MS can change my machine that I've owned for years with a legit retail boxed Windows and install beta code on it diguised as a patch that phones home. Even if every user in the US has legal licenses, they would be doing this to us anyway in preparation for their Vista launch in China, right? I'm sorry I'm getting away from your point now. MS is simply too big of a company now. The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, and the users suffer.
I don´t really understand why anyone in a corporate environment would object to the WGA? I can understand that there are privacy concerns with regards to your personal computer at home - but why would WGA stop anyone from upgrading to Vista? I doubt that WGA would be a major issue when considering upgrading. I believe the cost of new hardware and training would be more interesting. And of course the question of what important corporate piece of software won´t work with Vista?
Most corporations (companies, businesses) have confidential information that needs to be protected--you have heard of identity theft? Microsoft's back door leaves a gaping hole in any security policy. Even if Microsoft doesn't maliciously exploit that hole, how long do you think it will take for others to do so? What was it, a week, before Sony's root kit was exploited? This is a hole just as dangerous being made part of the operating system. Even if it means not getting any of the real security updates, there is no way I'd recommend installing WGA and there is just no way I'd ever use Vista.
I work for a large university system. At this point Im seriously looking at recommending a complete switch to some flavor of Linux. Not because its better (and thats actually debatable) but because for all of its flaws no version of Linux has designed in security holes and spyware!
Most corporations (companies, businesses) have confidential information that needs to be protected--you have heard of identity theft? Microsoft's back door leaves a gaping hole in any security policy. Even if Microsoft doesn't maliciously exploit that hole, how long do you think it will take for others to do so? What was it, a week, before Sony's root kit was exploited? This is a hole just as dangerous being made part of the operating system. Even if it means not getting any of the real security updates, there is no way I'd recommend installing WGA and there is just no way I'd ever use Vista.
I work for a large university system. At this point Im seriously looking at recommending a complete switch to some flavor of Linux. Not because its better (and thats actually debatable) but because for all of its flaws no version of Linux has designed in security holes and spyware!
Tablet PC owners have their Windows edition checked by WGA. WHY??? The only way you can get a copy of Windows Tablet PC Edition is if it came with the Tablet PC. Not only that, but it's checked repeatedly when trying to download from Microsoft sites. Requests for an explanation from Microsoft result only in someone from India quoting from the company policy manual like a robot on auto-pilot.
There's no thought behind this policy, just the usual "punish the customer" knee-jerk reaction that we've come to expect from Microsoft. Wait 'til you see how they handle security issues, at the user's expense, in Vista. You'll wear out your mouse clicking off ridiculous security check under User Account Control. But, at least UAC can be turned off.
Tablet PC owners have their Windows edition checked by WGA. WHY??? The only way you can get a copy of Windows Tablet PC Edition is if it came with the Tablet PC. Not only that, but it's checked repeatedly when trying to download from Microsoft sites. Requests for an explanation from Microsoft result only in someone from India quoting from the company policy manual like a robot on auto-pilot.
There's no thought behind this policy, just the usual "punish the customer" knee-jerk reaction that we've come to expect from Microsoft. Wait 'til you see how they handle security issues, at the user's expense, in Vista. You'll wear out your mouse clicking off ridiculous security check under User Account Control. But, at least UAC can be turned off.
Let me start by saying that I am not in any means a big fan of Microsoft, to be honest I would prefer to use Linux, however do to the fact that I am a gamer and do a little bit of programming in Visual Basic, I am stuck with Windows. Instead of people griping that WGA ruined their computer, or they get the nasty piracy msg on their Genuine copy and whining about it, look into the alternatives. Or better yet just do something about it. Get rid of Windows!
The vast majority of people in the US, and even outside the US that use computers for home and work only use it to surf the internet, do a spreadsheet or two, maybe write a letter, and check their emails (Now before I get flamed for this I know there are thousands of others out there that use their PC for other purposes than those stated above, I'm one of them, but over all were the minority here). Why do you need Windows if that is all you're going to use it for? If PC manufactures did us all a favour, and weren't subsidised by M$, they would give us the option of PC's preconfigured with a distrobution of Linux on it as a choice of a PC with Windows on it. A basic version of Linux preconfigured would be just as easy to use now as a barebones install of Windows.
And for the rest of us, those of us that play games, do a little bit of programming, maybe some networking and IT related jobs, we need to get off of our bums and start helping to develop Linux so that we can do all of our work from there. And if not Linux, BSD...
Mac people, all I can say for you is at least your happy...
With upcoming versions of Windows WGA is going to get worse. It will probably even get to a point where you won't even be able to log onto your PC if you don't have an internet connection so that it can check if your copy is valid first.
-------------- Mac people, all I can say for you is at least your happy... -------------- I've been using a Power Mac G5 at work for several months now and couldn't be happier. (Previously on Windows).
Yet another app running in the background and slowing down boot times. Good job MS.
This WGA needs to run just once to verify that my copy of windows is legal. Why does MS need to have this tool check my PC every time it boots? Has my Legal copy of windows cracked itself for no apparent reason while it was shut down.
For now, I simply chose to uncheck this update from my critical update list. I'll be joining the class action lawsuit if they decide to make this update mandatory or hide it in another patch.
My computer boots up all day long and never runs this checker more than the first time it ran once. Maybe you should check and see if you have a LEGAL version of Windows. My version works great, immaculate, I've never had an issue with my box...not like the list of whiners that are in this discussion. Geez you all sound like little 10 year olds that lost there TMNT action figures. Grow up...if you can't hack it...quit. That's all....quit. My computer has had an uptime of over 5 years without a bluescreen, hang up, or system restore...so you people MUST be doing something wrong....also FYI I don't see this in the process tab on startup, startup process in the registry, processes run in my firewall program...so you guys must have been infected by a WGA similar virus or something...
I have numerous copies of W3x,W95,W98 just collecting dust. These are not products I bought willingly. I was forced to buy them with computers I bought specifially to run linux. Bill never seemed to care if he forced me to buy something I didnt want. He never cared about the fact he extorted money from me.
Why should I care if I ever pay him any money again?
There is an old saying, "never con an honest man".
Bill is a crook, I dont give a rats rearend if I pirate an OS or office software from him. He owes me.
Bet I'm not the only one who feels that way.
Why is it the liar that always feels they are being lied to? And the thief always is on the lookout for someone to steal from him. Cause we all expect others to act just as we do. We may not admit that on the surface, but deep inside we all feel that way.
If Gates were honest and charged an honest price for a decent working product we would, most of us anyway, be honest with him.
You think it was Bill personally that forced all those computer manufacturers to include a copy of MS Windows with them? Or perhaps since the percentage of PC buyer that are Linux zealots are far outweighed by the percentage average folks wanting their pc to work out of the box with tons of available software without a configuration problem? Trust me, Bill doesn't give a tinker's damn about the tiny fraction of people loading Linux on their purchased pc (if you were a true purist, you'd have built your own, not purchased it configured with Windows installed and then you wouldn't have unused software licenses around) You folks aren't where he makes his money.
Lastly, if you're using Linux, why do you care what MS does to Windows users? I think you're either here to stir up anti-Microsoft sentiment just to be heard, or you secretly have a machine with MS Windows loaded and got the WGA install...in which case you have the right to present that argument, but not hidden behind a "Linux Rules and MS Sucks" rally cry.
with its US customers, by pushing its customers to download WGA using unethical means (making it a part of "critical security updates", and having this buggy, beta version, obnoxious tool "phone home" on a daily basis, with information gleaned from customers' systems).
Yet, they are aware of the much greater instances of piracy in other countries (China comes to mind) and apparently prefer to do nothing, taking the view that "we know they are using pirated software, but we want them to be OUR pirated software, so they become future customers ". Does this make sense to anyone?
This makes sense to work out their bugs before Vista ships, and before it becomes pay-as-you-go rental software for the 3rd world, delivered with Windows Live services and using backdoor-control subscription mechanisms. There are plans for a feature set below "Vista Basic" edition for this market. See "RE: A WGA that will actually work" They're using us as tests, if not for this reason, then some other reason.
I have no issue personally with MS wanting to validate my version of XP, but at every boot, once a week, once a month.... come on. Even the most ardent MS fan must see how nonsensical this effort at what MS claims to be anti-piracy is. You want to update your version of MS, validate it. Cool. I'm in full support. But as it stands now... I'm sorry, I'm just not able to grasp MS need to collect information on me and my machine at every boot or any real reason to revalidate my OS unless there have been some major change to the OS. To me this seems like a MS attempt at legitimizing spyware. MS is so heavily hacked as it is and this spyware just ups the ante.
I allowed Microsux to download this app and associated security patches. They screwed up my computer then good olld Microsoft wanted to charge me money to figure out what they did!
You really don't think Sony and the rest of the RIAA thieves aren't watching this with keen interest do you? This is exactily what they want. You boot up your WGA'd and SGA'd (Sony Genuine Advantage) copy of Windows and the SGA copy protection validation system checks to make sure your system has no illegal files on it and validates that your system in in compliance with current law. After the checks, you can be sure when your system boots up, that no lawsuits from the gang will be coming your way. People will feel much more comfortable knowing their machines are in compliance.
Come to think of it, don't they already have this? I think it's called VISTA.
jabbotts? kamwmail-cnet1? thedreaming? umbramistweave? Microsoft? Okay, I'll be honest here: I don't trust any of them. But at least MS has the cajones to not hide behind an alias. I have NO faith in the rest of the lot!
Windows XP seems to be more an attempt at global Operating System domination than than a product designed to give customer satisfaction. I dread to think what is in the latest OS as it is likely that items like this are now built in and well hidden. It seems that now all Microsoft users are regarded as being guilty of pirating software, music, video etc, rather than customers of this paranoid company. On this subject does everyone who has a Microsoft media centre in their home know that it too may be reporting usage information and checking on your recording activities?
I don't have firsthand knowledge of media centers inner workings. But go to wikipedia.org for tons of Vista inner workings. There is a special process called a protected process that is being used only for digital media. The assumption is that being "protected" will make it much harder to be circumvented by pirates. There are all sorts of DRM features built in, even the ability to control your HD display resolution or what audio outputs can be used, based on the license of the media. The purpose seems to be to appease Hollywood and RIAA so they can get more hands in your pockets. I myself am a professional musician and appreciate when people purchase music, but there is a drawback to too much regulation, which ultimately hurts artist exposure and ultimate profits. I'll bet Apple and Sony and all the other media-players out there will be bowing to the industry too. That's probably how it will be, but the problem is, where's the FULL OPEN DISCLOSURE? I don't need my computer being used for more data-mining, marketing, tracking, demographics, etc. Microsoft admitted that's what some of these things phone home for. There will be more, backdoors that is. Even your car's Onstar and cellphones are tracking you. I feel like it won't be long before I'm living in Aeon Flux's world! Watched!
Though I don't like Micro$oft's hard-handed tactics for stifling innovation by other companies, I understand them wanting to be paid for their operating system.
What I don't like is the way Windows appears to be practically RAMMED down our throats when we go to buy a new PC.
Not everybody wants to run Windows, let alone pay for it, yet unless somesthing drastic has changed since the last time I checked it out, most of the big PC makers FORCE you to purchase it in the price of a new system.
That's not right. Many of us are happy to use Linux and there's no way we oughta be forced to throw our dollars into Micro$oft's coffers...
Charles R. Whealton Charles Whealton @ pleasedontspam.com
Instead of forcing Windows, they could offer Linux as a choice, also by pushing Windows they discourage hardware manufacturers to write drivers for their products. The migration to Linux and Macs is very slow but the day could come when things change. Computers come with a Winmodem instead than a full complete modem, Winmodems unless using some kind of emulation only work with Windows. Instead of crying we consumers could do a lot to avoid all of these mess, I own Microsoft common stock, because they will make a killing with all these WGA, OneCare etc, it smells like lots of cash. But my hart is with Linux
But we the consumers are the ones who created the monopoly, of course corporate users too. No one wants to spend the time and money to invest in learning a new OS even if is free.
you can go online and buy a barebones system without an OS, put any kind of hardware into it that you want, and install any OS you want. you don't have to go to a store to buy a pc and be "forced" into paying for a Windows OS.
Microsoft employees says we're INSANE to trust hackers
Some even conviently accuse me of being a hacker since I'd posted here telling people to go to search under Google's Newsgroups for 905474.exe. Programming is not my forte so I definitely can't be the hacker. But I would take this opportunity to praise GHOST - the handle of the programmer of this hack. THANK YOU!!!
As to how I can trust Ghost? Well I don't. But I did do an antiviral scan and monitored my internet firewall activities and detected no signs of malware. This is hard to do with Microsoft's embedded spyware since it's part of the operating system. Oh, ever wandered why your WINDOWS (Not Internet) Explorer always wants to log OUT to the World Wide Web? MS isn't saying.
Some of these MS Ghestapos even ridicule my use of an anonymous handle as not having any courage. Like I'd posted earlier, MS employees have a problem understanding this American thingie called PRIVACY.
They also stated that I can easily load another OS like Linux since I'm so unhappy with Windoze. Well, they still haven't responded as to whether or not I'd get a refund if I mail back those license stickers on the side of my PC cases, since they insist on making me not wanting to use the product they sold to me.
Above all else, all these Microsoft employee postings highlights one very obvious thing. They still don't get it. If their reputation is so BAD that people are willing to trust anonymous STRANGE hackers over them; if their reputation is so BAD that thousands of programmers will give up their free time to code free OpenOffice and Linux programs in spite; if their reputation is so BAD that everybody automatically KNOW that more private info is sent out to MS than MS claims; than one would think MS would have gotten a clue that their way of doing business is a train wreck waiting to happen. But I guess even with a business case like CA staring them in the face, the MS MeatheadS still just don't get it.
Can't wait till Linux' graphical interface matures a bit more. Already using Linux for FULL Internet and Email functions, and OpenOffice had fully replaced MS Office. Just waiting for the games to switch over so I can totally remove Windoze from the dualboots.
Manage updates with the Download App
"Because having Yet Another Hole punched in the firewall just so the OS maker can keep tabs on what I do, and worrying that an update or a feature may not be available because a bug or a smiliar CD Key may make them think that I somehow pirated their OS?"
I really have no idea what you're talking about, probably because I not only use a hardware firewall, but I also use a software firewall that is much more vigorous than the one shipped with XP, and in fact I *disable* the XP software firewall by default. The software firewall I use catches far more than the XP firewall ever did--which is why I use it (obviously.) The XP firewall is strictly light-weight. But anyway:
Incidents of Microsoft software trying to "punch holes" in my system firewalls to "keep tabs" on what I do:
0 (that's "zero," if you are not mathematically inclined.)
Next, in five years I've yet to have a single problem with XP validation or WGA, and furthermore can assure you that what it does is far more involved than merely "reading a CD key." It probably hasn't crossed your mind, but if WGA wasn't far more involved than that there'd be little reason for Microsoft to deploy it, as it would be *so easy* to defeat. In fact, the program is designed not to base its results on merely a CD Key, and so on--very much like Windows Validation for XP.
Besides, although you talk about "bugs" and "messed up CD keys" you obviously are unaware of the purpose of WGA--and that is to stop the wholesale piracy of Windows by shops large and small who sell hardware platforms to their customers. I suppose it's because you don't know what WGA is that you misconstrue so badly what it does.
Apple makes its money on the hardware it sells, and as a result Apple doesn't have to worry about small computer stores building Macs and pirating its OSes in a bundle, does it? Food for thought.
"Yuck."
Yuck, indeed. If the WGA program operated as you believe it does, I wouldn't like it, either. But here's the clincher--neither would Microsoft.
"Seriously - my Macintosh doesn't do this at all, and my Linux boxes were installed from .iso files that I legally and freely downloaded."
Well, the news for you might be that the OS Apple supplies you for your Mac will *only run* on a box that Apple manufactures and sells. Again, Apple doesn't worry about computer shops doing wholesale piracy of its software because Apple would sue the pants off of any computer shop in the world that deigned to build a Mac clone capable of running the Mac OS. Also, now that the MacIntosh has gone MacIntel, you do know, don't you, that Apple doesn't allow it's OSes to run on any x86 machine Apple doesn't make--whether that machine is compatible or not?
What Apple does is to tie its OS to Apple hardware, whereas, since Microsoft doesn't make its own line of computers, Microsoft doesn't tie its OSes to any particular brand of x86 computer--but Microsoft, unlike Apple, goes to great lengths to support them *all.*
Hopefully, by now you'll be starting to get a glimmer of why and how things are done differently on your Mac than they are by Microsoft.
Last, btw, I can download and run the very same .iso Linux programs that you can, and pay for them the very same thing that you do. And guess what? The WGA program only concerns itself with Windows--doesn't give a damn about your Linux installs, illegal or no.
"It must really suck to be forced to subject one's personal data and personal property to the capricious whims of a large software company."
Excuse me while I chuckle, but are you talking about Apple or about Microsoft? It seems to me that by carefully circumscribing the machines that OSX will run on, Apple is no less "guilty" of such "capricious whims." And honestly, I seriously doubt that either Apple or Microsoft would talk of their initiatives to control where and when their OSes can run as "capricious whims." There's as much thought put behind Apple's only allowing you to run OSX on an Apple machine as their is behind Microsoft wanting you to run a legitimate copy of its OS on the machine of your choice.
"Okay, I can understand the need of a given company to prevent piracy of their products, but seriously... this method is rather intrusive (and costly in terms of bandwidth for those overseas who get taxed for it)."
Contrasted side by side, I think the Microsoft model is far less intrusive than the Apple model. Just try running your licensed copy of OSX x86 on a not-made-by-Apple x86 box and you'll see what I mean. Apple will shake its fingers and say, "Uh-uh--gotcha'! No can do!"
"No way, folks... I may never play HalfLife2 and such (though Quake4 runs just fine on my Mac...), but at least I know that no one is rummaging through my computer and leaving open potential holes for crakcers and script kiddies to wriggle in through."
Good grief, with all the security holes found of late in the Mac OS (OS X, specifically), and amid all of the patches Apple has released to plug those wholes just recently, I'm surprised you can say this with a straight face. CNET has carried many stories about that, FYI. And, the only thing I can think you're talking about when you use the word "rummaging" is the automatic Windows Update software that scans your OS system to see what needs updating and what doesn't. Well, if you find that "intrusive" then I can share with you that there are other pages on the Microsoft site which allow you to manually download the update files that you want and to install them locally yourself, sans the "rummaging" you think is being done by the auto-update software.
I don't need to waste my time doing that, however, since I "trust" the auto-update software to do its job, and have found over the years that it does that job very well. But to each his own, of course.
Just goes to show that things are nowhere near as black & white as you might like to think they are, doesn't it?
After thousand of hours, testing Linux distributions I found my ideal Operating System, plus many other excelent ones. It took a lot of effort, but I purchased several small hard drives at $2.00 and that was all it took to test every distro I found, close to 100. It was fun,at the begining wasn't easy but I made it.
Thanks to the guy that wrote the Blaster, I am free, Microsoft free.
Every time a new Linux Distro that looks interesting is released I take the time to download and I give it a try. Even old machines can run certain versions of Linux.
By buying the software we gave microsoft the power
we the consumers create these mounsters, we feed them. Of course they will rule and control us.
WGA should be installed once on every computer - if it passes, then the user should never be aware of WGA ever! It's not like a legitimate copy of Windows is suddenly going to turn into an illegitimate copy.
WGA is a great idea, and I think MS does have a right to run it - but they can't require us to download this every month, and consider the update a "critical update". Thats pathetic!
Oh wait: That won't work either. Why? Because it is almost CERTAIN someone will figure out how to get around it.
All of this verification ******** is exactly that: ********, because ANY verification system can be gotten around by someone who is smart enough.
Companies, give up on verification systems, and just start selling your software at a REASONABLE price.
Windows Vista should be ONLY 150 dollars for the Ultimate version, 100 for the next step down, and 50 for the next.
Price your stuff reasonably, and people will be WILLING to pay for it!
That's only 1/13 the size of the alphabet.
So what's your point?
I think MS should be force to remove all beta software from Windows update also. I understand Microsoft has the right to protect itself but installing flaw beta software without informing users is wrong.
It seems MS is now just a beta company all products are in beta with no release date for anything coming down the road.
It effectively calls you a thief, and it does so in writing.
That is libel.
It displays the message for the world to see: one's supervisors, one's clients, one's family, friends, etc.
Anyone who is watching the computer screen or a presentation when the WGAP screen pops-up will infer that you are running with illegitimate software...therefore, the reasonable conclusion is that you stole it.
Surely the computer wouldn't say it unless it was true, right?
That on-screen accusation could do incredible damage to one's career, destroy a business deal, damage a long-standing business relationship, give your children a reason to think you're dishonest, and so on.
Here's another scenario...Let's assume you're the one responsible for setting up the boss' notebook computer. Think of just how upset your boss would be if he or she was giving a Power-Point presentation to the corporate executives, and the WGAP screen popped-up when it shouldn't have. Think your careeer would survive that unscathed even if you explained that the program was in error? I doubt it.
You just need to validate when downloading specific patches and updates (DirectX 9 is an example). It's not a problem for us as all our Windows are licensed.
Unlike XP WGA, WGA in Win98 and Win2000 doesn't live in your machine and make a pest of itself and send Microsoft data daily.
So, is it any wonder that many people would rather be "Dinosaurs" using five year old software?
Microsoft's biggest competitors, aren't the Mac or even Linux. It's the millions of corporate seats that refuse to budge from Windows 2000 and Windows 98SE. These guys would rather shift to a non-MS OS than be forced to upgrade to XP and Vista if it means daily WGA checks.
People don't steal software to be without support because they want to. Everyone would love to own a legit copy of XP for all of thier systems, but some (mostly 3rd world countries and students) simply don't have the money for something that is now percieved as a "must have".
What happens when people percieve that they "must have" something (whether they really must have it or not is not the issue) and they cannot afford it? They "acquire" it.
The more affordable Windows becomes, the more people will buy it.
Its like the Student Teacher version of Office. If you lie, you can get it for $50 per PC. But, why should you have to lie? Why not make all Standard Office licenses $50?
That rasies the question of why businesses get charged more for the same software. Do they get more tech support for thier version of Office? No. Do they get more features in Office Standard for the money? No.
It can't be because businesses use it to make money....people use it for that at home. And, what of the businesses that aren;t making money or that are not-for-profit?
So why do businesses get charged more? Simple. It's a tax on businesses levied by Microsoft.
But, I digress.....
If MS want more paid users, make the products more affordable.
Then they released Windows NT at a premium price, then Win NT 4.0, then Windows 2000.
Then they decided to blend the two product lines, and started selling a network-crippled version: Windows XP Home for the same price as the former number desktop OS - Windows 98.
Nevermind that on the network front, Windows 98 could be updated to do more things than Windows XP Home.
Did you want the full networking capabilities of Windows 98 in Windows XP? Sure, you can have it...with XP Professional--at twice the price.
Now, Microsoft is saying that he version of Vista that is shipping OEM is really just the basic system, but if you want the same features that used to be in the most basic of the older OS...there's Vista Premium, at price premiums 100-200% above the old Windows 98, which had most of the features to begin with.
While the price of PC hardware has been going down, the price of Microsoft Operating systems and applications have been pushed upwards through segmentation. The old feature sets are no longer available in the "basic" packages, which quite strangely are the price as the older "complete versions." If you wnat the old feature sets, Microsoft says, get the "premium versions."
Sounds like buying a car advertised as being the same price as the old one....but finding out that things like tires, windows, and the engine are now "optional items."
Jim, you have a good point. Microsoft will have less of a problem with piracy if they adjust their prices in line with the adjustments in hardware prices.
Microsoft has become its own worst enemy.
would object to the WGA? I can understand that there are privacy
concerns with regards to your personal computer at home - but
why would WGA stop anyone from upgrading to Vista? I doubt that
WGA would be a major issue when considering upgrading. I believe
the cost of new hardware and training would be more interesting.
And of course the question of what important corporate piece of
software won´t work with Vista?
I work for a large university system. At this point Im seriously looking at recommending a complete switch to some flavor of Linux. Not because its better (and thats actually debatable) but because for all of its flaws no version of Linux has designed in security holes and spyware!
I work for a large university system. At this point Im seriously looking at recommending a complete switch to some flavor of Linux. Not because its better (and thats actually debatable) but because for all of its flaws no version of Linux has designed in security holes and spyware!
WHY??? The only way you can get a copy of Windows Tablet PC
Edition is if it came with the Tablet PC. Not only that, but it's
checked repeatedly when trying to download from Microsoft
sites. Requests for an explanation from Microsoft result only in
someone from India quoting from the company policy manual
like a robot on auto-pilot.
There's no thought behind this policy, just the usual "punish the
customer" knee-jerk reaction that we've come to expect from
Microsoft. Wait 'til you see how they handle security issues, at
the user's expense, in Vista. You'll wear out your mouse clicking
off ridiculous security check under User Account Control. But, at
least UAC can be turned off.
WHY??? The only way you can get a copy of Windows Tablet PC
Edition is if it came with the Tablet PC. Not only that, but it's
checked repeatedly when trying to download from Microsoft
sites. Requests for an explanation from Microsoft result only in
someone from India quoting from the company policy manual
like a robot on auto-pilot.
There's no thought behind this policy, just the usual "punish the
customer" knee-jerk reaction that we've come to expect from
Microsoft. Wait 'til you see how they handle security issues, at
the user's expense, in Vista. You'll wear out your mouse clicking
off ridiculous security check under User Account Control. But, at
least UAC can be turned off.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://zxo.blogspot.com/2006/06/stopping-windows-genuine-advantage.html" target="_newWindow">http://zxo.blogspot.com/2006/06/stopping-windows-genuine-advantage.html</a>
and
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://zxo.blogspot.com/2006/06/wga-notification-phones-home-during.html" target="_newWindow">http://zxo.blogspot.com/2006/06/wga-notification-phones-home-during.html</a>
The vast majority of people in the US, and even outside the US that use computers for home and work only use it to surf the internet, do a spreadsheet or two, maybe write a letter, and check their emails (Now before I get flamed for this I know there are thousands of others out there that use their PC for other purposes than those stated above, I'm one of them, but over all were the minority here). Why do you need Windows if that is all you're going to use it for? If PC manufactures did us all a favour, and weren't subsidised by M$, they would give us the option of PC's preconfigured with a distrobution of Linux on it as a choice of a PC with Windows on it. A basic version of Linux preconfigured would be just as easy to use now as a barebones install of Windows.
And for the rest of us, those of us that play games, do a little bit of programming, maybe some networking and IT related jobs, we need to get off of our bums and start helping to develop Linux so that we can do all of our work from there. And if not Linux, BSD...
Mac people, all I can say for you is at least your happy...
Cheers,
Bonez
With upcoming versions of Windows WGA is going to get worse. It will probably even get to a point where you won't even be able to log onto your PC if you don't have an internet connection so that it can check if your copy is valid first.
Bonez
Mac people, all I can say for you is at least your happy...
--------------
I've been using a Power Mac G5 at work for several months now and couldn't be happier. (Previously on Windows).
This WGA needs to run just once to verify that my copy of windows is legal. Why does MS need to have this tool check my PC every time it boots? Has my Legal copy of windows cracked itself for no apparent reason while it was shut down.
For now, I simply chose to uncheck this update from my critical update list. I'll be joining the class action lawsuit if they decide to make this update mandatory or hide it in another patch.
Why should I care if I ever pay him any money again?
There is an old saying, "never con an honest man".
Bill is a crook, I dont give a rats rearend if I pirate an OS or office software from him. He owes me.
Bet I'm not the only one who feels that way.
Why is it the liar that always feels they are being lied to? And the thief always is on the lookout for someone to steal from him. Cause we all expect others to act just as we do. We may not admit that on the surface, but deep inside we all feel that way.
If Gates were honest and charged an honest price for a decent working product we would, most of us anyway, be honest with him.
Trust me, Bill doesn't give a tinker's damn about the tiny fraction of people loading Linux on their purchased pc (if you were a true purist, you'd have built your own, not purchased it configured with Windows installed and then you wouldn't have unused software licenses around) You folks aren't where he makes his money.
Lastly, if you're using Linux, why do you care what MS does to Windows users? I think you're either here to stir up anti-Microsoft sentiment just to be heard, or you secretly have a machine with MS Windows loaded and got the WGA install...in which case you have the right to present that argument, but not hidden behind a "Linux Rules and MS Sucks" rally cry.
Duh.
Yet, they are aware of the much greater instances of piracy in other countries (China comes to mind) and apparently prefer to do nothing, taking the view that "we know they are using pirated software, but we want them to be OUR pirated software, so they become future customers ". Does this make sense to anyone?
Wish I had a Mac......
Advantage) copy of Windows and the SGA copy protection validation system checks to make sure your system has no illegal files on it and validates that your system in in compliance with current law. After the checks, you can be sure when your system boots up, that no lawsuits from the gang will be coming your way. People will feel much more comfortable knowing their machines are in compliance.
Come to think of it, don't they already have this? I think it's called VISTA.
mark d.
computers, I don't like these things because they eat my RAM and
sys. resources.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.network54.com/Forum/7505/" target="_newWindow">http://www.network54.com/Forum/7505/</a>
Programmer #A-5 of www.totallyparanoia.com
innovation by other companies, I understand them wanting to be
paid for their operating system.
What I don't like is the way Windows appears to be practically
RAMMED down our throats when we go to buy a new PC.
Not everybody wants to run Windows, let alone pay for it, yet
unless somesthing drastic has changed since the last time I
checked it out, most of the big PC makers FORCE you to
purchase it in the price of a new system.
That's not right. Many of us are happy to use Linux and there's
no way we oughta be forced to throw our dollars into Micro$oft's
coffers...
Charles R. Whealton
Charles Whealton @ pleasedontspam.com
But we the consumers are the ones who created the monopoly, of course corporate users too. No one wants to spend the time and money to invest in learning a new OS even if is free.
As to how I can trust Ghost? Well I don't. But I did do an antiviral scan and monitored my internet firewall activities and detected no signs of malware. This is hard to do with Microsoft's embedded spyware since it's part of the operating system. Oh, ever wandered why your WINDOWS (Not Internet) Explorer always wants to log OUT to the World Wide Web? MS isn't saying.
Some of these MS Ghestapos even ridicule my use of an anonymous handle as not having any courage. Like I'd posted earlier, MS employees have a problem understanding this American thingie called PRIVACY.
They also stated that I can easily load another OS like Linux since I'm so unhappy with Windoze. Well, they still haven't responded as to whether or not I'd get a refund if I mail back those license stickers on the side of my PC cases, since they insist on making me not wanting to use the product they sold to me.
Above all else, all these Microsoft employee postings highlights one very obvious thing. They still don't get it. If their reputation is so BAD that people are willing to trust anonymous STRANGE hackers over them; if their reputation is so BAD that thousands of programmers will give up their free time to code free OpenOffice and Linux programs in spite; if their reputation is so BAD that everybody automatically KNOW that more private info is sent out to MS than MS claims; than one would think MS would have gotten a clue that their way of doing business is a train wreck waiting to happen. But I guess even with a business case like CA staring them in the face, the MS MeatheadS still just don't get it.
Can't wait till Linux' graphical interface matures a bit more. Already using Linux for FULL Internet and Email functions, and OpenOffice had fully replaced MS Office. Just waiting for the games to switch over so I can totally remove Windoze from the dualboots.