WGA problem

[PaulFXH]

WGA is flawed, of course. After all, it's only software.

With the greatest of respect, this kind of broad brush, unsubstantiated
opinion is not worth cr*p.
Please forgive me if it was intended to be enlightening as it most
certainly wasn't.
Perhaps you could explain what kind of benefit you had expected to
bestow on the world with this offering.

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BAAlias=BA?=]

With the greatest of respect, this kind of broad brush, unsubstantiated
opinion is not worth cr*p.
Please forgive me if it was intended to be enlightening as it most
certainly wasn't.
Perhaps you could explain what kind of benefit you had expected to
bestow on the world with this offering.

Take it or leave it. WGA is flawed. That is a fact that you, yourself,
have proved. If you don't like it, complain to Microsoft. Shooting the
messenger won't help you with your problem at all.

Alias

 

[PaulFXH]

Take it or leave it. WGA is flawed. That is a fact that you, yourself,
have proved. If you don't like it, complain to Microsoft. Shooting the
messenger won't help you with your problem at all.

Yeah, but a messenger talking cr*p doesn't help me either.
For example, what does "flawed" mean? If it means "not perfect", I
think that this epithet could be applied to pretty much everything in
our part of the universe.
Do you know anything that isn't flawed or, at least, could not be
described by somebody else as flawed?
Even something that's 99.999% perfect is still flawed.
The purpose of me writing to this NG was to see if somebody could help
me get around one of the inevitable imperfections in our world. Telling
me that WGA is flawed was not helpful even if your intentions were
honorable.
Paul

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BAAlias=BA?=]

Yeah, but a messenger talking cr*p doesn't help me either.
For example, what does "flawed" mean? If it means "not perfect", I
think that this epithet could be applied to pretty much everything in
our part of the universe.
Do you know anything that isn't flawed or, at least, could not be
described by somebody else as flawed?
Even something that's 99.999% perfect is still flawed.
The purpose of me writing to this NG was to see if somebody could help
me get around one of the inevitable imperfections in our world. Telling
me that WGA is flawed was not helpful even if your intentions were
honorable.
Paul

NOBODY on this ng is an expert on WGA. Try the web based and highly
censored forum that MS has set up for WGA. I don't know the url (I'm not
allowed to access it) but I am sure that a search at microsoft.com will
lead you there. Just be sure to be subservient and treat MS like a god
or you, too, will be censored.

Alias

 

[antioch]

Take it or leave it. WGA is flawed. That is a fact that you, yourself,
have proved. If you don't like it, complain to Microsoft. Shooting the
messenger won't help you with your problem at all.

Yeah, but a messenger talking cr*p doesn't help me either.
For example, what does "flawed" mean? If it means "not perfect", I
think that this epithet could be applied to pretty much everything in
our part of the universe.
Do you know anything that isn't flawed or, at least, could not be
described by somebody else as flawed?
Even something that's 99.999% perfect is still flawed.
The purpose of me writing to this NG was to see if somebody could help
me get around one of the inevitable imperfections in our world. Telling
me that WGA is flawed was not helpful even if your intentions were
honorable.
Paul


Then post here and see if MS have an answer

http://forums.microsoft.com/genuine/default.aspx?siteid=25

OR here

http://forums.microsoft.com/Genuine/ShowForum.aspx?ForumID=444&SiteID=25

Rgds
Antioch

 

[DanS]

With the greatest of respect, this kind of broad brush,
unsubstantiated opinion is not worth cr*p.
Please forgive me if it was intended to be enlightening as it most
certainly wasn't.
Perhaps you could explain what kind of benefit you had expected to
bestow on the world with this offering.

Paul,

With the utmost respect respect for you as well, let me make this
analogy.....

This whole WGA thing is quite similar to the whole Chrysler 2.5L 4-
cylinder issue. In the 97/98'ish models years, this engine was put into
Cirrus' and Neaon's and such. The head gasket was of poor design which
would cause engine failure. Chrysler will not admit being at fault. The
design of the gasket was changed 4 or 5 times in a period of time.
Chrysler did very little for owners that had problems, and at the very
best would 'split' the repair bill 50/50, if you would fight long and
hard for it. So it is apparent that the design was flawed, especially
since it was redesigned several times in a short period of time. I'm not
even sure of the percentage of cars that showed problems, but it had to
be small.

Fast-forward to 2005/2006. WGA started to be pushed to machine's in July
2005 (I THINK). There have been 4 or 5 different versions including the
initial one sent out through AU and d/l'd from M$ to get some freebie
utility or something. Why would there be that many versions if there were
no flaws in it ? M$ did admit that in the first several updates, WGA was
in a 'beta' stage.

There is always flaws in s/w, bugs if you will. It's the nature of the
beast. If a s/w package is perfect, there is no reason to update it,
meaning no new versions, meaning no more $$.

We/you may never know why many seemingly 'Genuine' installs of XP fail
WGA.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Enough said on that, so of my interest now is the question of how old
your Dell is ?

It's obviously more than 30 days old. I thought Dell offered telephone
support for a year when you buy a PC. Maybe you have to 'buy' that now.
It has been several years since I had to deal with Dell.

Anyway, this brings up a question. The OEM version of XP is less
expensive because the OEM is supposed to provide support instead of M$.
Fine, that may make sense. Dell will customize the XP install to fit
their hardware (and add loads of crapware into it) and sell that to you
pre-installed on/for a specific hardware platform.

Then, Windows is updated, let's say WGA is pushed, and it causes problems
on your PC (as it did yours, originally). Is Dell REALLY required to
support this ? It is a software component of Windows that was not in
existance when they created their XP package. Dell had no control in
putting it on your system.

Of course I am not defending Dell here, nor M$, as I may never, but it
brings up a good point I think.

 

[PaulFXH]

Then post here and see if MS have an answer

http://forums.microsoft.com/genuine/default.aspx?siteid=25

OR here

http://forums.microsoft.com/Genuine/ShowForum.aspx?ForumID=444&SiteID=25

Thanks.
I was unaware of these forums and I certainly will take my query to
them.
For Alias, if being subservient for the few minutes it takes me to
write the post means I get an answer that's useful, I can handle that.
Paul

 

[PaulFXH]

DanS wrote:

Paul,

With the utmost respect respect for you as well, let me make this
analogy.....

This whole WGA thing is quite similar to the whole Chrysler 2.5L 4-
cylinder issue. In the 97/98'ish models years, this engine was put into
Cirrus' and Neaon's and such. The head gasket was of poor design which
would cause engine failure. Chrysler will not admit being at fault. The
design of the gasket was changed 4 or 5 times in a period of time.
Chrysler did very little for owners that had problems, and at the very
best would 'split' the repair bill 50/50, if you would fight long and
hard for it. So it is apparent that the design was flawed, especially
since it was redesigned several times in a short period of time. I'm not
even sure of the percentage of cars that showed problems, but it had to
be small.

Fast-forward to 2005/2006. WGA started to be pushed to machine's in July
2005 (I THINK). There have been 4 or 5 different versions including the
initial one sent out through AU and d/l'd from M$ to get some freebie
utility or something. Why would there be that many versions if there were
no flaws in it ? M$ did admit that in the first several updates, WGA was
in a 'beta' stage.

There is always flaws in s/w, bugs if you will. It's the nature of the
beast. If a s/w package is perfect, there is no reason to update it,
meaning no new versions, meaning no more $$.

We/you may never know why many seemingly 'Genuine' installs of XP fail
WGA.

Hi
Actually I was not at all disputing the fact that WGA is or is not
flawed but merely the bald, featureless statement to this end that was
presented in an earlier post on this thread.
It's like an argument raging about whether the world is big or small.
The first step in ensuring a productive argument is to define what you
mean by big and small and on what basis these qualities are to be
measured.
Just saying that in your opinion the world is big without accompanying
this announcement with the appropriate definitions and at least some
corroboratory evidence is not at all helpful.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Enough said on that, so of my interest now is the question of how old
your Dell is ?

It's obviously more than 30 days old. I thought Dell offered telephone
support for a year when you buy a PC. Maybe you have to 'buy' that now.
It has been several years since I had to deal with Dell.

Anyway, this brings up a question. The OEM version of XP is less
expensive because the OEM is supposed to provide support instead of M$.
Fine, that may make sense. Dell will customize the XP install to fit
their hardware (and add loads of crapware into it) and sell that to you
pre-installed on/for a specific hardware platform.

Then, Windows is updated, let's say WGA is pushed, and it causes problems
on your PC (as it did yours, originally). Is Dell REALLY required to
support this ? It is a software component of Windows that was not in
existence when they created their XP package. Dell had no control in
putting it on your system.

Of course I am not defending Dell here, nor M$, as I may never, but it
brings up a good point I think.

Actually, I had a three-year warranty on my Dell computer (it's
normally a year, but because of an error during the delivery of the
computer they extended the warranty to 3 years for free). This expired
a few months ago although it only covered hardware items.
The warranty on the OEM software is 30 days.
Nevertheless, I have spoken to Dell many times since my warranty
expired and have always found them to be most courteous, knowledgeable
and helpful whether my query broached hardware or software matters. In
addition, this courtesy was extended even though I wasn't buying
anything from them.
The only time ever I felt disappointed with Dell was when they demanded
€51 for rectifying my WGA problem, although even this was done with
extreme courtesy.
I agree with you that I cannot complain from a legalistic viewpoint
about their behaviour in this instance, but it just took me by surprise
particularly as the problem was actually very easy to solve (once you
know how).
Paul

 

[DanS]

DanS wrote:


Hi
Actually I was not at all disputing the fact that WGA is or is not
flawed but merely the bald, featureless statement to this end that was
presented in an earlier post on this thread.

<SNIP>

I can say that the WGA arugument that have been hashed out here were semi
-out-of-control at some point. I myself am growing tired of it. As I'm
sure Alias is as well.

The bottom line is WGA is software, and nature of the beast, it doesn't
work perfectly on 100% of PC's out there, just like any software. I too
if not a regular here might question the response, but in other
newsgroups, I may question similar responses.

There can be intelligent discussion sometimes.

Actually, I had a three-year warranty on my Dell computer (it's
normally a year, but because of an error during the delivery of the
computer they extended the warranty to 3 years for free). This expired
a few months ago although it only covered hardware items.
The warranty on the OEM software is 30 days.
Nevertheless, I have spoken to Dell many times since my warranty
expired and have always found them to be most courteous, knowledgeable
and helpful whether my query broached hardware or software matters. In
addition, this courtesy was extended even though I wasn't buying
anything from them.
The only time ever I felt disappointed with Dell was when they
demanded €51 for rectifying my WGA problem, although even this was
done with extreme courtesy.
I agree with you that I cannot complain from a legalistic viewpoint
about their behaviour in this instance, but it just took me by
surprise particularly as the problem was actually very easy to solve
(once you know how).
Paul

Seems odd to me to have a decent experience with a big OEM. But your
right, if they knew how to solve the problem in a simple manner, why
charge that much for it if at all. Of course their 'paid-for' advice
would have probably been to restore !!

Regards,

DanS

 

[rockwell]

20% of all reported "non-genuine" software by WGA is a false result:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=89
And this figure is probably not entirely accurate since it is the figure
reported by the biased MS.

NOBODY on this ng is an expert on WGA. Try the web based and highly
censored forum that MS has set up for WGA. I don't know the url (I'm not
allowed to access it) but I am sure that a search at microsoft.com will
lead you there. Just be sure to be subservient and treat MS like a god
or you, too, will be censored.

Alias

There's an echo in here!

 

[PaulFXH]

20% of all reported "non-genuine" software by WGA is a false result:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=89
And this figure is probably not entirely accurate since it is the figure
reported by the biased MS.

Hi Rockwell
Thanks for this although I actually referred to this statistic myself
earlier in this thread.
However, Kerry Brown subsequently cast some doubt on its validity.
Indeed, I'm rather dubious myself as, prior to this one-off failure,
WGA had accepted the validity of my OS at least 50 times.
Now, if the statistical chance of success with WGA is only 0.8 (or 4
times out of 5 as suggested by your link), then the chance of WGA
accepting your OS 50 times in a row is just a little more than 1 in one
hundred thousand.
I really don't believe I'm that lucky.
I'm more inclined to believe that the failure was somehow related to
the clean-reinstall that I had just carried out.
Although I have posted to the Microsoft WGA forum on this matter, I
really believe I will never get a reasonable explanation for this
although I will keep trying as long as I still find it entertaining.
Paul

 

[Bob I]

I think perhaps you are misreading the title. It is stating that One out
of five WGA failures occurs on a PC that actually has a valid key, but
something has caused it to be flagged as invalid.

 

[PaulFXH]

I think perhaps you are misreading the title. It is stating that One out
of five WGA failures occurs on a PC that actually has a valid key, but
something has caused it to be flagged as invalid.

Hmmm, not sure Bob. I still think I got it right.
Here's a little more detail on my line of reasoning:

I'm assuming that the one out of five failures on valid OSs are caused
totally randomly and are not at all influenced by anything else on the
user's machine.
Then, if one out of five tests (on valid OSs) fail, that means that 4
out of 5 are passed.
Now, 4 out of 5 is 80-% or fractionally, 0.8
So, from what I understand, the chance of a one time WGA test
succeeding on a valid OS is 0.8
The chances of getting through two successive WGA tests is 0.8 to the
second power which is 0.64 or 64%.
Consequently, the chances of having the WGA test succeed in 50 tests in
a row is 0.8 to the power of 50 which is a very, very small number and
is, for all practical purposes, zero.
In other words, if the numbers given in the quoted article are correct
and the 20% failures are truly, but inexplicably, random, then there
really is no chance whatsoever of going through 50 successive WGA tests
without at least one failure.
QED

Paul

 

[paulmd]

Hmmm, not sure Bob. I still think I got it right.
Here's a little more detail on my line of reasoning:

It's not that 1 out of 5 tests fail. It's of the failures, one in 5 is
actually legitimate.

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BAAlias=BA?=]

It's not that 1 out of 5 tests fail. It's of the failures, one in 5 is
actually legitimate.

Exactly, assuming, of course, that MS' figures can be trusted.

Alias

 

[PaulFXH]

It's not that 1 out of 5 tests fail. It's of the failures, one in 5 is
actually legitimate.

Yeah, looks like I took a wrong turn there somewhere. Thanks for
straightening me out on this.
However, my intention was only to try to quantify the extent of the
"flaw" in WGA that Alias had mentioned. Calculations based on my
erroneous assumption that 1 in 5 WGA tests on valid OSs failed gave
rise to the near impossibility of getting through 50 successive tests
without a failure. This, indeed, very strongly suggested that this
assumption MUST be wrong.
Given that there is no data available regarding the relative number of
tests on pirated OSs in comparison to tests on valid OSs, it is not
possible from this data to calculate the incidence of WGA failure on
valid OSs.
Nevertheless, given that I had gone through 50 successive tests without
a failure, we can reasonably assume that the probability of this must
be high. Let's conservatively assume 0.95 (or 95%) in order to give an
order of magnitude, or ballpark, estimate.
Based on this assumption, we can calculate that the probability of a
valid OS getting a positive result from a one-off WGA test is 0.999
(0.95 to the power of one over 50). This means there is only one chance
in 1000 of a valid OS being failed.
Now, certainly it will be extremely inconvenient for the one in a
thousand OSs that fail the test, as I have found myself.
Nevertheless, a failure rate of one in 1000 doesn't seem to me to
deserve being termed "flawed".
Paul

 

[Bob I]

Yeah, looks like I took a wrong turn there somewhere. Thanks for
straightening me out on this.
However, my intention was only to try to quantify the extent of the
"flaw" in WGA that Alias had mentioned. Calculations based on my
erroneous assumption that 1 in 5 WGA tests on valid OSs failed gave
rise to the near impossibility of getting through 50 successive tests
without a failure. This, indeed, very strongly suggested that this
assumption MUST be wrong.
Given that there is no data available regarding the relative number of
tests on pirated OSs in comparison to tests on valid OSs, it is not
possible from this data to calculate the incidence of WGA failure on
valid OSs.
Nevertheless, given that I had gone through 50 successive tests without
a failure, we can reasonably assume that the probability of this must
be high. Let's conservatively assume 0.95 (or 95%) in order to give an
order of magnitude, or ballpark, estimate.
Based on this assumption, we can calculate that the probability of a
valid OS getting a positive result from a one-off WGA test is 0.999
(0.95 to the power of one over 50). This means there is only one chance
in 1000 of a valid OS being failed.
Now, certainly it will be extremely inconvenient for the one in a
thousand OSs that fail the test, as I have found myself.
Nevertheless, a failure rate of one in 1000 doesn't seem to me to
deserve being termed "flawed".
Paul

Even one in 100,000 would be bad, since a failure would be requiring
hand holding by real people. My guess would be more on the order of one
in a 10,000,000 valid systems failing the test if it was testing on a
daily basis.

 

[jt3]

Would it be worth pointing out that your original tacit assumption in asking
the question was that failures were explicable in the sense of finding a
particular indicator (else no point in asking) but your calculation made the
implicit assumption that the failures were random? In principle, the first
would be correct, but since virtually no piece of software is ever totally
free from bugs (as Alias suggested), the reality would be somewhere in
between, practically speaking?

J

 

[PaulFXH]

Would it be worth pointing out that your original tacit assumption in asking
the question was that failures were explicable in the sense of finding a
particular indicator (else no point in asking) but your calculation made the
implicit assumption that the failures were random? In principle, the first
would be correct, but since virtually no piece of software is ever totally
free from bugs (as Alias suggested), the reality would be somewhere in
between, practically speaking?

Interesting points.
However, did Alias really contend that ALL software has bugs and is
therefore "flawed"?
If this were the intention, it would seem quite pointless to single out
WGA as being "flawed" as this condition would therefore be an
inevitable consequence of its (and every other piece of software's)
very existence.
The very fact that it was mentioned seems to suggest that he viewed
this condition as being uniquely peculiar to WGA (or at least that's
how it came across to me).
[Please note that I do agree that all software has bugs and is
therefore "flawed"].
The question is "Is WGA any more flawed than software in general to
have it merit the derisory connotation which Alias applied to it?".
It was in an attempt to answer this question that I attempted to
quantify how flawed it really was.
You are quite right to mention that I had posted here looking for an
explanation for my WGA experience. However, as I have not yet gotten an
explanation and additionally to make my goal calculable, I was forced
to make the assumption of random error----fully realizing that this
could, at best, only provide a ballpark estimate.

Paul

 

[jt3]

WRT Alias' post, my interpretation, possibly influenced by reading other
posts of his on the subject, was that he objects to WGA fundamentally upon
the basis that it interferes with customary usage of the product (Windows)
and does so in an offensive manner. Secondarily with respect to any concept
of poor quality and therefore poor value.

Surely, most of us have become accustomed to bugs in software, and it is
primarily the resulting degree of disfunctionality we experience that
determines (in conjunction with our personal tolerances) the point at which
we become vocal. Naturally, there is a spectrum . . .

J

Would it be worth pointing out that your original tacit assumption in asking
the question was that failures were explicable in the sense of finding a
particular indicator (else no point in asking) but your calculation made the
implicit assumption that the failures were random? In principle, the first
would be correct, but since virtually no piece of software is ever totally
free from bugs (as Alias suggested), the reality would be somewhere in
between, practically speaking?

Interesting points.
However, did Alias really contend that ALL software has bugs and is
therefore "flawed"?
If this were the intention, it would seem quite pointless to single out
WGA as being "flawed" as this condition would therefore be an
inevitable consequence of its (and every other piece of software's)
very existence.
The very fact that it was mentioned seems to suggest that he viewed
this condition as being uniquely peculiar to WGA (or at least that's
how it came across to me).
[Please note that I do agree that all software has bugs and is
therefore "flawed"].
The question is "Is WGA any more flawed than software in general to
have it merit the derisory connotation which Alias applied to it?".
It was in an attempt to answer this question that I attempted to
quantify how flawed it really was.
You are quite right to mention that I had posted here looking for an
explanation for my WGA experience. However, as I have not yet gotten an
explanation and additionally to make my goal calculable, I was forced
to make the assumption of random error----fully realizing that this
could, at best, only provide a ballpark estimate.

Paul