Comments on: Fighting Microsoft's piracy check

The software pushes ahead with a piracy check tool for Windows as some users complain about system troubles and unwanted data collection.

[Walt Connery]

As usual, main reason for WGA ignored...

While CNET of courses manages to mention piracy in passing, it's obvious that CNET doesn't consider software piracy much of a big deal--but considers Microsoft's WGA program far more alarming. Yawn...this is just the usual Windows mud slinging I've grown to expect as par for the course from CNET.

Apparently CNET hasn't noticed its own headlines of recent years, but the majority of problems that Microsoft's had with piracy stem from mom & pop, "we build it for you" stores. These stores often take a single copy of Windows and install it on dozens to hundreds of the machines they sell locally, and often the poor consumer doesn't even know that the "great deal" he's getting from his local store unfortunately doesn't include a legitimate copy of Windows--even though the customer himself believes he's paid for it. The last few major cases Microsoft has prosecuted, in fact, deal with this exact scenario.

The WGA program is geared precisely for these people, isn't it? It's to alert people to the fact that the copy of Windows they've purchased is illegitimate.

OK, so what's the one thing people would normally do who suddenly discover that their copy of Windows isn't legitimate? I can tell you that if it was me I'd return to my place of purchase and raise hell about it. I'd also tell Microsoft from whom it was that I purchased the bogus software in the first place.

OTOH, what is the thing that people will do who know they're running a bogus copy of the OS, and have been running a bogus copy of the OS for a long time, but who suddenly get caught by the WGA program? They're going to ***** and moan, just like we see here, aren't they?

It goes without saying that these people aren't going to go to their place of purchase and *****, since they already know the copy they've been running is bogus. Instead, they'd rather "go to Microsoft" in the hopes that they could con someone there just like they probably did in the early days of XP, when they had to phone in to Microsoft to get a copy of WindowsXP validated that wouldn't validate over the Internet. So predictible.

Remarks like the following I find annoying because they are so easy to see through:

""I have licenses for all my PCs," wrote CNET News.com reader "kamwmail-cnet1." But citing a lack of trust in Microsoft, this reader installed the 905474.exe tool. "Install this hack. Boot your PC. You're in business, private business," the reader added."

Interesting, isn't it, how "kamwmail-cnet1" has no trouble at all in "trusting" Microsoft to supply the OS he runs on all his machines, and no trouble at all "trusting" Microsoft to supply whatever number of updates and patches it wishes to supply those machines gratis, but, according to CNET, he cannot "trust" Microsoft enough to properly administer the WGA program? Sorry, but that's just not believable.

On my machine at home I'm running a copy of WindowsXP which I purchased in 2001. Since then it has been updated innumerable times and moved to several different platforms with vastly different hardware setups, has been validated by Microsoft maybe a dozen times both by phone and over the Internet and, lo and behold, the WGA program has never caused me, or *anyone else* on my home network, the slightest problem. But then, I *know* that my copies of Windows are legitimate, so I've not been surprised by the fact that WGA hasn't caused me any problems.

But at work, the only direct experience I've heard of where the WGA kicks in happened in a situation where it *should* have kicked in. An employee took a copy of the company's XP home (corporate edition) and installed it improperly to his home system--and whammo--the WGA caught him. Predictibly, he didn't like it either...;)

I think the remarks here about, "Gee, I'd rather go to the Mac where I can run all the bogus software I want" are pretty funny. I agree with them and wish them well--it would suit me just fine if the people who object to paying for a Microsoft OS would move to Apple for that privilege.

All that said, I think that Microsoft could do with a bit of revision to its non-commercial licensing. I note that my copy of Vista Beta2x64 includes *TEN* local licenses (for ten machines.) I also note that Apple is smart enough to provide for more than the one-license-per-machine dictum that Microsoft has been so fond of--unless I'm mistaken. Microsoft could save itself a lot of work by simply acknowledging the fact that today's home user is likely to have a network and so the one-license-per-machine stipulation is unrealistic and unreasonable, outside of a business environment, that is.

As long as there are small computer hardware shops that want to pirate Windows in quantity I think there will always be a plain and obvious justification for the WGA program. But when it comes to home/family use, I think that Microsoft could revise its licensing policies in that regard and ultimately save itself a whole lot of work.

[whataheadache]

RE: As usual, main reason for WGA ignored

Walt,
I once was also a Microsoft supporter who believed that only the pirates would be irked by their genuine "advantage" program. This time they have gone too far. I, like thousands of other ticked-off legitimate users who are posting to blogs at MS support and elsewhere, am running legal Windows that I purchased from Office max in a box and installed myself, and have suffered from the underhanded, unethical tactics of Microsoft. You and microsoft need to understand that installing per-release anti-piracy code disguised as a critical update so that they can work out this phone-home system they are building into Vista is unethical. I am one of the 40% of users who took the time to read the EULA, and declined the "update" because I don't have time to be troubleshooting their pre-release code on my machine when their post release code is buggy enough. Well guess what, it broke my Microsoft Update, and i was forced to install a 'WGA software update' just to access the site at all. And after that, the Notifications tool I declined was really installed. I had been dealing with the idiots at MS tech support for months who just know how to paste corporate answers into their emails without fully reasing the issue.
You are correct in pointing out that the mom and pop shops do just copy windows on machines they build/fix. I would have to say that more often it would be machines that are fixed rather than built. The average mom/pop shop is fixing far more Dells and Hps than it is building them, because anyone who builds Pc's knows that you can't compete with them price-wise, and most consumers shop for the lowest price. And this is a tremendously small segment of the market in the US anyway. The fact is there are alot of Certificates of Authenticity out there that don't match the code on the drive, but you cannot assume that means the code on the drive was not paid for originally at some point. MS does need to revisit its licensing.
The real issue here is that Microsft is installing spyware on your machine. They did it to me even when i declined it, they slipped it in. My machine has never failed any windows validation checks. But alas, you CANNOT uninstall this "update". SOFTWARE THAT INSTALLS WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT THAT PHONES HOME DAILY AND CANNOT BE REMOVED IS SPYWARE, no matter what spin the people at MS try to put on it. It should never have been classified as a critical update, as MS claims it would enhance the security of the machine. If I want to check the validity of my software for security purposes, i can do that anytime by visiting their genuine advantage site. The only purpose is to catch pirates at everyone else's expense. Ironically, The "fix" touted on MS sites is to reinstall Windows, which alone is dangerous is SP2 is not slipstreamed, and turn off automatic updates to prevent this from installing again. Yes, turn off automatic updates! Now when I purchased Xp, one of the touted features was that it would install security updates quickly and effortlessly. Now in order to keep my machine free of spyware that connects daily to MS so they can debug future Vista features, i have to disable this functionality? I thought I bought something I own, but apparently not. And look out, because they are putting this in Vista where it will phone home every 90 days to see if it is still genuine. That's not the concern of a paying customer. Microsoft can go jump in a lake and Walt, you need a reality check that MS is really taking us all for a ride. I would like to be compensated for all my wasted time as an unwilling software tester, or "guinea-pig" as stated in the article., and also not everyone who has a problem with MS is a hacker or a pirate, (although now I understand how some of those folks may have got to that point). I for one, am sick of jumping thru hoops to correct the failures of a multi-billion dollar corporation, and these recent sneaky tactics are enough. I'm dumping MS after all this, and you and the other MS fans can keep your noses way up high in their corporate butts that will soon crap on you too. Saying things like "it would suit me just fine if the people who object to paying for a Microsoft OS would move to Apple".
That's ridiculous. I don't know many people running pirated Macs! In fact you always spend more to run a mac than a comperable windows box. The only problem is I don't want to be a Mac-lover in their utopia fantasy land of Steve Jobs is GOD and apple is perfect. Those folks are even more brainwashed. So, maybe its time for linux? But i do know this, Microsoft has unleashed a massive test program that is damaging computers everywhere that are licensed, legal, and validated, and cannot repair or uninstall it. I can't wait for the class-action suit. They really deserve it.

[wildman6801]

Agree with you

I cannot say anymore than that. It is true: The people who are ******** about WGA are the ones that WGA was designed to stop. Microsoft does have a way that if you come up with a false possitive to get validated properly. Remember that if a customer payed for a copy of a product the company will value that person. Also I would ***** that Microsoft shouldn't be putting this product on the main update page if it is beta but I haven't had any major problem with it. The users that do are ones that WGA is preventing from getting updates.

[bwithnell]

False assuptions?

What you state is what Microsoft wants you to believe is always the case. The problem is that it isn't always accurate.

I have 6 computers in my home, and at least 7 licenses from Microsoft (I tend to loose track after I know where the "Certificate of Authenticity" that has the product key is located for the boxes I have up and running are. All of them should be legal--three are installed with the box (2 Dell, 1 IBM) and 3 are boxed editions purchase at Staples (2) and BestBuy (1). All are major vendors, not one of them even conceivable that they would have "illegal" licenses.

WGA caused one of my machines to crash on installation, required me to reinstall windows and then the update worked. No change to the hardware was done, but the install crashed my system. It most likely was caused by the numerous changes I make to that machine (it is one of the 3 I built from scratch -- no, I take that back, I think that was the machine I started years ago, and had OS/2 on originally -- it has had numerous changes though, and many license (original NT box purchased after 3.1 came out, upgraded to 2000, then to XP Professional when that came out). It has had ?clean? installs over the years when things either died (main hard drive) or crashed (the registry is a pain, it should have been dropped long ago).

The only ?justification? they could have for saying it does add value is that they produce updates (to what I would call software malpractice -- buffer overrun errors, and other security patches) for those that have it installed. DDOS attacks on servers, spammer, and other mass attacks on the internet use unpatched slave computers where the owner is unaware the machine is unpatched, infected and remotely controlled.

While the proximate cause for the damage is not Microsoft, their irresponsible software development practices are responsible for much of the damage. With modern development tools, and the ability of the processors (ever since the 80386 processor) to segregate code and data so that never the twain should meet, there is NO EXCUSE for the errors in the OS. Justification based on irresponsible action on their part is no justification at all. All persons are harmed by the irresponsible writing of software -- even those that do not use a computer (the billions of dollars lost by companies that were infected by worms pass those costs on to us -- a $6 billion worm cost a lot of money to all of us).

Because Microsoft originated the defects that allowed these things in the first place, Microsoft should be forced to provide patches to all machines that could negatively impact the world (both legal and illegal copies of Windows) so everyone does not have to pay for Microsoft?s irresponsible design and workmanship. Microsoft is not the proximate cause of the plague of malware, but they are a contributing factor. They make money (and lots of it) from the software they develop. They should consider the patching of the mistakes not a ?benefit? to the user, but a cost of business due to lack of quality. Critical/Security updates should be provided, even to illegal users, free of charge. Microsoft is the proximate cause of security flaws, which allow the proximate cause of malware to easily exploit the users and even those who have no computer at all. They have a responsibility to the world at large to release patches freely for as wide a possible distribution as they can. Not doing so is like leaving loaded guns on the floor of a toddler nursery and claiming they are not the ones responsible for the damage. Badly designed and/or implemented software is dangerous. It must be fixed even if it should not have been installed in the first place.

[bwithnell]

false presumptions?

What you state is what Microsoft wants you to believe is always the case. The problem is that it isn't always accurate.

I have 6 computers in my home, and at least 7 licenses from Microsoft (I tend to loose track after I know where the "Certificate of Authenticity" that has the product key is located for the boxes I have up and running are. All of them should be legal--three are installed with the box (2 Dell, 1 IBM) and 3 are boxed editions purchase at Staples (2) and BestBuy (1). All are major vendors, not one of them even conceivable that they would have "illegal" licenses.

WGA caused one of my machines to crash on installation, required me to reinstall windows and then the update worked. No change to the hardware was done, but the install crashed my system. It most likely was caused by the numerous changes I make to that machine (it is one of the 3 I built from scratch -- no, I take that back, I think that was the machine I started years ago, and had OS/2 on originally -- it has had numerous changes though, and many license (original NT box purchased after 3.1 came out, upgraded to 2000, then to XP Professional when that came out). It has had ?clean? installs over the years when things either died (main hard drive) or crashed (the registry is a pain, it should have been dropped long ago).

The only ?justification? they could have for saying it does add value is that they produce updates (to what I would call software malpractice -- buffer overrun errors, and other security patches) for those that have it installed. DDOS attacks on servers, spammer, and other mass attacks on the internet use unpatched slave computers where the owner is unaware the machine is unpatched, infected and remotely controlled.

While the proximate cause for the damage is not Microsoft, their irresponsible software development practices are responsible for much of the damage. With modern development tools, and the ability of the processors (ever since the 80386 processor) to segregate code and data so that never the twain should meet, there is NO EXCUSE for the errors in the OS. Justification based on irresponsible action on their part is no justification at all. All persons are harmed by the irresponsible writing of software -- even those that do not use a computer (the billions of dollars lost by companies that were infected by worms pass those costs on to us -- a $6 billion worm cost a lot of money to all of us).

Because Microsoft originated the defects that allowed these things in the first place, Microsoft should be forced to provide patches to all machines that could negatively impact the world (both legal and illegal copies of Windows) so everyone does not have to pay for Microsoft?s irresponsible design and workmanship. Microsoft is not the proximate cause of the plague of malware, but they are a contributing factor. They make money (and lots of it) from the software they develop. They should consider the patching of the mistakes not a ?benefit? to the user, but a cost of business due to lack of quality. Critical/Security updates should be provided, even to illegal users, free of charge. Microsoft is the proximate cause of security flaws, which allow the proximate cause of malware to easily exploit the users and even those who have no computer at all. They have a responsibility to the world at large to release patches freely for as wide a possible distribution as they can. Not doing so is like leaving loaded guns on the floor of a toddler nursery and claiming they are not the ones responsible for the damage. Badly designed and/or implemented software is dangerous. It must be fixed even if it should not have been installed in the first place.

[itango]

ONCE AND FOR ALL!

The main reason customers like me (with valid MS software purchased at Circuit City) are upset is:

1. WGA is a BETA copy, not a fully functional product
2. Foisted as "critical security update" (which is a lie, since there is nothing related to customer security in it - it supposedly is an antipiracy tool - big difference)
3. Phones "home" to MS every day (why does it need to validate my OS every day? I do not re-install my OS every day, and neither does anyone I know.
4. Sends back unspecified information to MS (in other words, does not just "validate" the copy of Windows, but snoops in my computer.
5. There is no provision made to help customers that this tool has erroneously identified as a "pirate", when in fact all the customer did is they installed a new piece of hardware in their computer,or had to reformat their hard drive.

GET IT???????

[itango]

ONCE AND FOR ALL!

The main reason customers like me (with valid MS software purchased at Circuit City) are upset is:

1. WGA is a BETA copy, not a fully functional product
2. Foisted as "critical security update" (which is a lie, since there is nothing related to customer security in it - it supposedly is an antipiracy tool - big difference)
3. Phones "home" to MS every day (why does it need to validate my OS every day? I do not re-install my OS every day, and neither does anyone I know.
4. Sends back unspecified information to MS (in other words, does not just "validate" the copy of Windows, but snoops in my computer.
5. There is no provision made to help customers that this tool has erroneously identified as a "pirate", when in fact all the customer did is they installed a new piece of hardware in their computer,or had to reformat their hard drive.

GET IT???????

[TKang]

As long as there are THIEVES

In house we "had" two copies Adobe® Creative Suite 2 Premium and one copy of CS Production Studio. We purchased these as "OEM discs" from a local shop after Jeanne/Frances hit us. The cost was about 20% less than ordering up the boxed retail set. (I really do not need the manuals anymore.) The software ran without a hitch, and was updated through Adobe.

After Wilma hit, I was having a HDD acting up and prepped for updating the PC(s). I reinstalled the Suites, and attempted to activate the software. Then ?Surprise, Surprise, Surprise.? After 3 attempts (one while customer service was on the phone), there was no activation and many registry errors. After another 12 hours with ?Level 3 customer service;? following requests for hardcopies of receipts (which took the bank 4-weeks to get), etc., Nada. The local shop was no longer in business and disappeared after Wilma. After additional investigation (4 months or so); the long story short was that the "OEM discs" were actually pirated copies and the Keys were useless for reinstallation now (and Adobe would not reissue keys). In the meanwhile the ?bad guys? are somewhere (not in jail), and I get to list this as a loss to the IRS.

As long as there are THIEVES that want to pirate Windows or other media, I think there will always be a plain and obvious justification for WGA/DRM programs. I only hope they were more efficient in catching the thieves than upsetting the lives of legitimate users.

[wtortorici]

This is blasphemy

that anyone would circumvent all the effort the great God Gates has gone thru for us.

For penence you must face the northwest, kneel, and bow your head 3 times a day for each day you prevented the Empire MS from protecting you.

[sunny7v]

Windows (RootKit) Spyware

This is going to be my last Windows/Os in my & my family Pc's.
This is one of the worst Windows spyware Made by M$ Itself,This tool want to connect with Bill Gates MotherShip every time you start the Os.

Next time i will wait before i get my pc update on Fat Tuesday(2nd tuesday of Every Month or so)

i can disable this service but next time you wan't to upgrade the windows it make you start this service again???


After Sony this is next Worst Spyware out there by any company.

[imkain]

so basically

Your family will suffer from the robbing of great software that their local school uses and local government pays for...so when your kids get made fun of because they are completely confused and disoriented because they don't have a Windows PC...they will be able to sit down and thank you.

[Zymurgist]

New VISTA has special Spyware feature

One of the new features of MS Vista is the notion of a protected process. If you can get your hands on the approriate key to sign your application, you can force it to run in a special protected mode. The process cannot be stopped, it can hide itself from the process list, it can assume administrative privleges, and it can be made impossible to dump.

It's an intentional security feature to secure some processes at the risk that a malevolent process will be authorized to run invisibly in a way guaranteed to be unstoppable and unremovable.

[inachu]

day 27 WGA still doesnt work on my WMCE 2005 machine.

Yes its fully licensed legit OS and not a copy and
I still get the 299 error and over 5 VIP whoopdeedoo MVP microsoft techies gave me directions and I made sure each dirction was followed exactly and still WGA killed my ability to update my machine....

Windows update no longer works because of this.
And Microsoft calls this a benefit. FOR WHOM?!?!?!

WGA SUCKS!!!

[lkrupp]

Captive audience...

Wail and cry you want to. It's not like you have a choice in the
matter. With 95% of the market Microsoft dictates the terms, not
the customer. You will authenticate and you will like it because MS
says so. End of debate.

[jmagecko]

End of the debate? Not hardly.

Just because Microsoft is the biggest kid on the block does not make the debate go away. It means it remains unresolved.

Under the "MS is the biggest kid on the block" mantle, I would suggest the following for thought. This is one definition for extortion as applied in California. Other states have similar descriptions, but they do vary on a state-by-state basis.

The important bit re: my part of this debate, is that numerous people have said you can't complain about something for which you GAVE CONSENT (via the WGAP pre-install agreement). I don't agree with that, and here's one reason why...The Hobbs Act.

"The Hobbs Act defines 'extortion' as "the obtaining of property from another, WITH HIS CONSENT, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right." 18 U.S.C. S 1951(b)."


Now, consider the following definitions interpreted within the scope of this act. Possible criminal extortion per interpretation of existing law?


"Property": personal information

"Fear": deny/withhold vital services or threat of exposure (in this case, as a thief, even when you are not)

"Official right": software license (modified after initial purchase of license)

[Walt Connery]

Counterpoints...

(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?

[gerardogerardo80]

Stop the addiction to Microsoft, yes you can.

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.

[explorer5]

WGA Should Check Once - Then Never Again!

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!

[Leria]

I agree

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!

[bearcatbob]

Wanna buy the Alphabet?

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?

[imkain]

here is the bottom line

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.

[AzureLight]

lesser alphabet

And all of Windows (and every other operating system) is composed of only two digits - 1 and 0 (that's binary for you technical types).

That's only 1/13 the size of the alphabet.

So what's your point?

[Randall_Lind]

They should be sued for beta WGA

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.

[jmagecko]

Should also be sued for libel

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.

[NoMoreMS]

Vista Is Coming! Vista Is Coming!

So make your choice and sleep with it.

[Maccess]

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.

[Jim Hubbard]

A WGA that will actually work.....

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.

[Maccess]

Quite the opposite is happening.

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.

Microsoft has become its own worst enemy.

[whataheadache]

RE: a WGA that will actually work

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.

[andrewholden]

Why?

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?

[Raemir]

Because Back Doors Aren't Good

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 I?m seriously looking at recommending a complete switch to some flavor of Linux. Not because it?s ?better? (and that?s actually debatable) but because for all of its flaws no version of Linux has designed in security holes and spyware!

[Raemir]

Because Back Doors Aren't Good

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 I?m seriously looking at recommending a complete switch to some flavor of Linux. Not because it?s ?better? (and that?s actually debatable) but because for all of its flaws no version of Linux has designed in security holes and spyware!

[ogman]

Get This....

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.

[ogman]

Get This....

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.

[zxocuteboy]

WGA Workarounds

I came across this workarround for WGA, check it out:

http://zxo.blogspot.com/2006/06/stopping-windows-genuine-advantage.html

and

http://zxo.blogspot.com/2006/06/wga-notification-phones-home-during.html

[Bonez.Oz]

WGA, XP, and Vista

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...

Cheers,
Bonez

[Bonez.Oz]

RE: WGA, XP, and Vista

One last note:

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

[chris_d]

I'm happy

--------------
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).

[HarisBrown]

Ticking me off

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.

[imkain]

what are you talking about

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...

[R Me]

M$ is its own enemy

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.

[a473497]

Who forced you?

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.

Duh.