WGA Ain't So Bad

[Jeff]

And Leythos,
Basically saying like it or leave it; is your rebuttal of facts?
A+ from MS for that answer
Jeff

Ah,
Do you know IF I use antivrus stuff? And
many people don't have the luxury to drop Windows;as you say. And; I
again;do not have an issue with WGA;just the method.
Jeff

 

[Leythos]

And Leythos,
Basically saying like it or leave it; is your rebuttal of facts?
A+ from MS for that answer

No, what I'm saying is that if you're paranoid enough to be that scared
of WGA, well, you should not be using something that you know phones
home often, and that include AV products, Acrobat, etc...

 

[Jeff]

Ah Leythos;
You get me wrong;(it's good to dicuss things;by the way), I am not
afraid of WGA and did not install KB905474. And again,not upset with it in
the least;the theory;MS does have the right to protect it's property. They
should be more upfront about it is all; sort of like you have been,spelling
it out. Not sneakily trying to install WGA.
Well gotta run; gotta go REPORT (LOL) to work!!!!
Jeff

 

[Rhonda Lea Kirk]

As usual, you have to agree to Updates when you select to allow them.
The EULA has nothing to do with something you agree too after the
fact. I expected some distraction from you like this.

This is a direct contradiction of what you wrote just upthread, Leythos.

There is no distraction, but there is some inconsistency, and it ain't
comin' from Alias.

Automatic and Manual updates don't just start, you have to agree to
them.

Automatic updates start in the middle of the night and they install
entirely without intervention.

Not only that, before I was compelled (by OneCare) to keep automatic
updates turned on (otherwise I get the dreaded red), I don't ever recall
having to accept an additional agreement before installing updates.

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk

Insisting on perfect safety is for people
without the balls to live in the real world.
Mary Shafer Iliff

 

[Rhonda Lea Kirk]

Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:

Yes, your thinking is flawed. There is nothing that says MS has to
provide updates, you personally elected to allow that function for
your own reasons.

No. My thinking is not flawed, and the argument you just made makes no
sense. The conclusion not only does not follow from the premise, it has
nothing to do with the premise.

What if I came in here and told you that you don't know dog$hit about
computers, Leythos? Wouldn't it be wrong of me to denigrate your
education and experience that way?

But you're doing exactly that to me in my area of expertise.

And the fact of the matter is that you can say my argument is flawed
until you're blue in the face, but I have never seen you make an
argument. Nor have I ever seen you refute the argument that is made to
you. Instead, you swerve off into a whole 'nother line of thought, which
totally diverts the discussion.

We ran into this before, and I backed off, because I understood what it
was you wanted to say and why you wanted to say it. At first, I thought
you were just being an obstinant <expletive deleted>, and then I
understood it to be an entirely different problem which is why I let it
go then, and why I try to understand what it is you're trying to say
rather than how you're saying it.

Nonetheless, you never start with a premise, offer facts in support of
the premise, and reach a conclusion that comports with the facts. You're
all over the place, and while I'm willing to make allowances for an area
in which you are lacking--much as I would expect you to make allowances
for me in your area of expertise--I'm not going to sit back and allow
you to make the assertion that *my* argument is flawed when you don't
know how to make a friggin' argument, period.

There is nothing that states what they will allow you to PULL to your
machine via Windows Updates, you choose to allow them when you enable
automatic updates or when you manually update your computer.

At no point are you forced to install ANY updates, you made the
decision to install/allow the updates.

You don't have to participate in WGA, but you won't get the benefits
tied to WGA unless you participate, it's your decision.

One more time for the team, because those last three paragraphs go in a
friggin' circle. Crikey!

But now that we have gone in a circle, here's where we end up: Microsoft
is saying: "If you do not allow us to install spyware on your computer,
we will not comply with our obligation to make our software work as
advertised."

It's that simple. Microsoft sells an operating system full of holes and
bugs. As time goes on, those holes and bugs become apparent, and
Microsoft is obliged to fix what was sold to me (and every other
consumer) in a broken state. But now, to have a product that is not
broken, I am required to prove to Microsoft, every time I boot the
system, that I did not steal the product.

Woo hoo!

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk

Insisting on perfect safety is for people
without the balls to live in the real world.
Mary Shafer Iliff

 

[Alias]

As usual, you have to agree to Updates when you select to allow them.
The EULA has nothing to do with something you agree too after the fact.
I expected some distraction from you like this.

Automatic and Manual updates don't just start, you have to agree to
them.

If you want to get updates, you have no choice. Updates are necessary
for security. MS put this one in as a "critical update" when, in fact,
it's spyware.

Alias

 

[Rhonda Lea Kirk]

No, what I'm saying is that if you're paranoid enough to be that
scared of WGA, well, you should not be using something that you know
phones home often, and that include AV products, Acrobat, etc...

Stop skewing the issue.

Antivirus definitions have nothing to do with this, and the analogy is
flawed because antivirus benefits me.

The same for other software updates (well, some of the time).

WGA works to the detriment of the consumer with the intention of
benefiting only Microsoft.

Unfortunately for Microsoft, WGA is a public relations disaster.

My operating system is paid for, I am in compliance with my EULA, so I
don't have any concerns in that regard.

My concern, and the concern of everyone discussing this issue is with
regard to the implementation. So if you can't address that argument,
you're having a different argument.

"Take it or leave it" is not an argument. "You're paranoid" is not an
argument. "If you're scared..." is not an argument.

Please address the issue, instead of submitting non-issues to obfuscate
the fact that you really can't make an argument for the way WGA has been
implemented.

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk

Insisting on perfect safety is for people
without the balls to live in the real world.
Mary Shafer Iliff

 

[Scott]

When I accepted the licensing and PA and other functions that were built
into Windows, I didn't complain, as I understood the need for them and
accepted them.

When WGA came out, I accepted it for what it is - and I don't have any
issues with it either.

As for a Car, if they start including functions which phone home, then I
will either accept it or I will purchase a different car. As it is, many
new cars track all that you do in them, without your knowledge, without
your permission, and only the Police/Insurance company can access them.

I don't see you complaining about Antivirus software, which updates
nightly with some code that you have no clue about.

If you don't like WGA then stop using Windows and show MS that you're
serious, as your complaints here mean nothing to anyone except the
others wearing the foil hats.

BUT "their" product is FLAWED at the outset and in need of regular
"fixes" just to keep it functional and able to do that which it claims
it can do.
Who has the onus the buyer or the seller ..whose fault is it that MS
product is so seriously flawed?? hmmmm?

 

[Leythos]

Ah Leythos;
You get me wrong;(it's good to dicuss things;by the way), I am not
afraid of WGA and did not install KB905474. And again,not upset with it in
the least;the theory;MS does have the right to protect it's property. They
should be more upfront about it is all; sort of like you have been,spelling
it out. Not sneakily trying to install WGA.
Well gotta run; gotta go REPORT (LOL) to work!!!!

I see your position now, you just don't approve that that it was placed
in the updates. So, if it had been on their website, stating that you
have to install this before you can get any more automatic/critical
updates, would you have an issue with that method?

 

[Leythos]

This is a direct contradiction of what you wrote just upthread, Leythos.

No, it's not even close to a contradiction, just think about the
processes where you are asked if you want to enable automatic updates
and what you agreed too.

There is no distraction, but there is some inconsistency, and it ain't
comin' from Alias.


Automatic updates start in the middle of the night and they install
entirely without intervention.

Wrong, you have to enable them, at that point they default to installing
at 3AM, but they are not enabled by default on any computer I've
installed.

Not only that, before I was compelled (by OneCare) to keep automatic
updates turned on (otherwise I get the dreaded red), I don't ever recall
having to accept an additional agreement before installing updates.

I don't use OneCare on any system, we get all the updates, and we had to
approve turning them on before they were enabled, it's always been this
way since they automated it. Check you facts before telling me I'm wrong
again.

 

[Uncle Grumpy]

WGA works to the detriment of the consumer with the intention of
benefiting only Microsoft.

WHA...???

Explain, please.

Unfortunately for Microsoft, WGA is a public relations disaster.

Because it exposes pirated software, or because it has glitches that
sometimes make a proper product APPEAR to be pirated?

 

[Leythos]

No. My thinking is not flawed, and the argument you just made makes no
sense. The conclusion not only does not follow from the premise, it has
nothing to do with the premise.

What if I came in here and told you that you don't know dog$hit about
computers, Leythos? Wouldn't it be wrong of me to denigrate your
education and experience that way?

But you're doing exactly that to me in my area of expertise.

And the fact of the matter is that you can say my argument is flawed
until you're blue in the face, but I have never seen you make an
argument. Nor have I ever seen you refute the argument that is made to
you. Instead, you swerve off into a whole 'nother line of thought, which
totally diverts the discussion.

Nope, you're technical lack of understanding is getting in the way of
your area of expertise - since you don't have the technical side clear
you can't argue with facts.

You permitted automatic updates to work, you or the person that setup
your computer agreed to it, and that's where your logic is failing, you
don't get automatic updates if you don't agree to it to start with.

Oh, and I've refuted many posts about it, as have others, you're just
not listening:

1) WGA only seems to impact pirated copy users
2) WGA may (see 1 above) impact a small number of non-pirated copies,
but from all the posts/complaints I've read, it's been less than 1 out
of all the posts here. When you present people with the information to
check the validity of their license, check how they obtained it, that
they have no COA, no CD/Media, no restore partition/disk, you don't hear
from them again - problem appears to have resolve itself as a pirated
copy of xp
3) If you do identify a user as having a pirated copy, well, there isn't
much you can do for them.

There has been no wavering on my part, WGA works well, it detects
pirated copies, it does not cause problems on properly licensed
computers for masses of users, and it impacts what would seem to be less
than 1% (actually a lot smaller) of people using XP.

Want to try again?

 

[Leythos]

Stop skewing the issue.

Antivirus definitions have nothing to do with this, and the analogy is
flawed because antivirus benefits me.

Not all updates to AV benefit you - what about the ones that check your
licensing?

The same for other software updates (well, some of the time).

What about the updates for Acrobat? What about the acrobat update tool?

WGA works to the detriment of the consumer with the intention of
benefiting only Microsoft.

Wrong, it works for the customers that have legit licenses, you just
keep ignoring the reasons.

Unfortunately for Microsoft, WGA is a public relations disaster.

Only in a small group of PR minded people. It's not something the news,
not in the tech section (and we have 5 entire pages devoted to it here)
of our new paper, and it's not a topic for ANY of the people I know.

My operating system is paid for, I am in compliance with my EULA, so I
don't have any concerns in that regard.

My concern, and the concern of everyone discussing this issue is with
regard to the implementation. So if you can't address that argument,
you're having a different argument.

You agreed to automatic updates, that's fact, and you agreed to have
them installed, if you didn't check that you want to manually install
them, then you have no argument. If you don't want updates, WGA
included, then you didn't have to install it, it's as simple as that.

If you didn't understand what your computer was doing, well, that's not
MS's fault.

"Take it or leave it" is not an argument. "You're paranoid" is not an
argument. "If you're scared..." is not an argument.

Please address the issue, instead of submitting non-issues to obfuscate
the fact that you really can't make an argument for the way WGA has been
implemented.

Addressed again, see all of the above.

 

[Ano Nym]

No. My thinking is not flawed, and the argument you just made makes no
sense. The conclusion not only does not follow from the premise, it has
nothing to do with the premise.

What if I came in here and told you that you don't know dog$hit about
computers, Leythos? Wouldn't it be wrong of me to denigrate your
education and experience that way?

But you're doing exactly that to me in my area of expertise.

And the fact of the matter is that you can say my argument is flawed
until you're blue in the face, but I have never seen you make an
argument. Nor have I ever seen you refute the argument that is made to
you. Instead, you swerve off into a whole 'nother line of thought, which
totally diverts the discussion.

We ran into this before, and I backed off, because I understood what it
was you wanted to say and why you wanted to say it. At first, I thought
you were just being an obstinant <expletive deleted>, and then I
understood it to be an entirely different problem which is why I let it
go then, and why I try to understand what it is you're trying to say
rather than how you're saying it.

Nonetheless, you never start with a premise, offer facts in support of
the premise, and reach a conclusion that comports with the facts. You're
all over the place, and while I'm willing to make allowances for an area
in which you are lacking--much as I would expect you to make allowances
for me in your area of expertise--I'm not going to sit back and allow
you to make the assertion that *my* argument is flawed when you don't
know how to make a friggin' argument, period.




One more time for the team, because those last three paragraphs go in a
friggin' circle. Crikey!

But now that we have gone in a circle, here's where we end up: Microsoft
is saying: "If you do not allow us to install spyware on your computer,
we will not comply with our obligation to make our software work as
advertised."

It's that simple. Microsoft sells an operating system full of holes and
bugs. As time goes on, those holes and bugs become apparent, and
Microsoft is obliged to fix what was sold to me (and every other
consumer) in a broken state. But now, to have a product that is not
broken, I am required to prove to Microsoft, every time I boot the
system, that I did not steal the product.

Woo hoo!

RL,
I'm with you all the way until the last sentence. I've downloaded and
installed the WGA Validation tool, but not any of the WGA Notification
tools (the one that phones home). I've been back to WU several times
since, and all it does is complain that I've opted to hide a critical
update. WGA Validation said that my system is genuine, and I've also
been to the site that Carey Frisch recommends, where, when I click the
"validate" button, it says everything's OK.

Are you suggesting that because I haven't installed the WGA Notification
tool there are updates hidden from me at WU? Including perhaps critical
updates that I won't know a thing about because I've elected not to be
"notified" about something to which I already know the answer?

 

[antioch]

RL,
I'm with you all the way until the last sentence. I've downloaded and
installed the WGA Validation tool, but not any of the WGA Notification
tools (the one that phones home). I've been back to WU several times
since, and all it does is complain that I've opted to hide a critical
update. WGA Validation said that my system is genuine, and I've also been
to the site that Carey Frisch recommends, where, when I click the
"validate" button, it says everything's OK.

Are you suggesting that because I haven't installed the WGA Notification
tool there are updates hidden from me at WU? Including perhaps critical
updates that I won't know a thing about because I've elected not to be
"notified" about something to which I already know the answer?

And once you have downloaded this imposed piece of software it will stay on
your system for ever and ever and ever and ever. Watching just in case to
swap your already authorised/authenticated/genuine OS for a pirated one.
If you do not download, you get no updates(apart I think for security ones -
not too sure)unless that is, only for those who DO have a counterfeit OS ,
and they will only get the security ones.
Now, you cannot say fairer than that - unless you know
differently??????????????
Rgds
Antioch

 

[Jeff]

Sure,
I'll jump back into the fray(on my break),
You kill me;really!! Methodology my dear Leythos; methodology.
Something that you;or ANYONE involved;have not been able to
refute;legitimize; or even come close to explaining. Why try to hide
KB905474? Why use deceitful methods to monitor someone?
And in response to your earlier post; yes if KB905474 was put up
legit-instead of trying to sneak it past everyone; I would then not have
such a problem with it. Being straightforward and telling a customer what is
expected;IS acceptable. The consumer would then at least;be able to make an
informed choice;as to if they wanted to "use" said software or;as you so
aptly put earlier; like it or leave it. And I wouldn't be suprised;if MANY
people that you believe;aren't impacted by WGA, would definitely(if they
could) seek alternatives to Microsoft's products.
Jeff

 

[Leythos]

If you do not download, you get no updates(apart I think for security ones -
not too sure)unless that is, only for those who DO have a counterfeit OS ,
and they will only get the security ones.

I'm not running WGA Notifications on this computer, and I just did a
manual Windows Update Custom, and was able to download and install
updates without any problems.

 

[Ano Nym]

And once you have downloaded this imposed piece of software it will stay on
your system for ever and ever and ever and ever. Watching just in case to
swap your already authorised/authenticated/genuine OS for a pirated one.
If you do not download, you get no updates(apart I think for security ones -
not too sure)unless that is, only for those who DO have a counterfeit OS ,
and they will only get the security ones.
Now, you cannot say fairer than that - unless you know
differently??????????????
Rgds
Antioch

Where does MS say "If you do not download [WGA Notification], you get no
updates(apart I think for security ones)"?

What is the basis for this conclusion? I mean, since I in fact have a
genuine non-counterfeit installation of WinXP, I "presumably" could
install WGA Notification and be none the worse ... but I'd just as soon
not do that unless there is some reason I should -- i.e., to get access
to updates that I otherwise won't have access to.

 

[Noozer]

As usual, you have to agree to Updates when you select to allow them.
The EULA has nothing to do with something you agree too after the fact.
I expected some distraction from you like this.

Automatic and Manual updates don't just start, you have to agree to
them.

Uhm... "Automatic' infers lack of user intervention.

Also, how do you explain that the WGA update was pushed to the public as a
security update? It's actually the opposite, allowing Microsoft into your PC
to spy on what you have and what you do.

 

[Leythos]

Sure,
I'll jump back into the fray(on my break),
You kill me;really!! Methodology my dear Leythos; methodology.
Something that you;or ANYONE involved;have not been able to
refute;legitimize; or even come close to explaining. Why try to hide
KB905474? Why use deceitful methods to monitor someone?

Ah, now we're getting to the meat of the problem, and in a way that
anyone can put a finger on:

For some, the fact that MS put this update out there in an automatic
download, for those that had it installed or for those that didn't read
about the update before loading it, is a issue of ethics.

For others, the fact that MS put the WGA update out there in an
automatic download, where it's not caused them any problems, is just
meaningless and has not impacted them at all.

If MS wanted to (and they did) hit the pirates where it counts, and they
are, the only way to do it was make it part of the automatic updates so
that typical users would not bypass it - the entire point of displaying
the nag/warning is to get people to purchase legit software, which
should also push the pirates victims into going after their pirates.
Don't tell me you would really expect a vendor to give people a easy to
bypass warning notice and means to opt out of knowing if their software
was pirated - what would the point be if only the legit people loaded
the WGA test?

I completely understand "How" you/they (the first group) feel, but
because I understand how you feel does not mean I support your position.

The way I look at is like this, while I would rather not have to deal
with WPA, WGA, Stickers with keys, etc... it's just a fact of how MS
does things. It makes it a pain sometimes, like when a user wants to
move from Action Pack licensing to retail and MS insists that you MUST
UNINSTALL ACTION PACK SOFTWARE, you can not just put the retail licenses
in the vault and continue to use the AP software. Simple fact is that MS
is going to, has been, and will do more, to protect their product, and
if that means that one day you have to have a RFID chip within 3" of the
computer to use Windows, well, people will still use it and that's just
how it will be.

And in response to your earlier post; yes if KB905474 was put up
legit-instead of trying to sneak it past everyone; I would then not have
such a problem with it. Being straightforward and telling a customer what is
expected;IS acceptable.

Good, I thought we would be on the same page with that one.

The consumer would then at least;be able to make an
informed choice;as to if they wanted to "use" said software or;as you so
aptly put earlier; like it or leave it.

Since so few legit users are impacted by WGA, I don't expect that many
people would switch to anything else on the market as there is nothing
that supports the same level of hardware as Windows XP/2003 does
currently. Of those that come close, they are not as easy to get home-
user support for, not as easy to purchase preinstalled and supported,
etc...

And I wouldn't be suprised;if MANY
people that you believe;aren't impacted by WGA, would definitely(if they
could) seek alternatives to Microsoft's products.

Maybe for those of us that are technical or those willing to live with
all of the unsupported devices and lack of apps that directly interface
with others using Windows software, but I suspect that few would jump
ship.