Enhanced WGA

[Alias~-]

Well, MS has shot itself in the foot again with even more draconian anti
piracy measures (read, fool paying customers into buying copies of Vista
that they don't need):

http://today.reuters.com/news/artic..._0_TECH-MICROSOFT-PIRACY.XML&rpc=66&type=qcna

As no software is perfect, there will be plenty of false positives. How
to stop MS from doing this? Easy, don't buy Vista and if you're going to
order a Dell, HP, etc., insist on XP instead of Vista.

Alias, happy with XP.

 

[Antioch]

Well, MS has shot itself in the foot again with even more draconian anti
piracy measures (read, fool paying customers into buying copies of Vista
that they don't need):

http://today.reuters.com/news/artic..._0_TECH-MICROSOFT-PIRACY.XML&rpc=66&type=qcna

As no software is perfect, there will be plenty of false positives. How to
stop MS from doing this? Easy, don't buy Vista and if you're going to
order a Dell, HP, etc., insist on XP instead of Vista.

Alias, happy with XP.

Hi Alias,
I am all for anything that stops piracy/theft/handling stolen goods etc.
There will of course be collateral damage - as there is/was with the WGA
fiasco.
But I think that having this protection in place before the issue of Vista
onto the market, should help to cut down this damage. As opposed to the
intro of WGA onto computers with existing XP, and whatever rubbish was added
to the system.
I was quite expecting to read a far more draconian solution from MS. Like,
your system crashes if not activated within 30 days
We can only wait and see.
It will be something to keep an eye on.
I hope they remember to get a site set up in the community discussions
newsgroups, for feedback - I know they will need it.
Rgds
Antioch

 

[Alias~-]

Hi Alias,
I am all for anything that stops piracy/theft/handling stolen goods etc.

I am too but that's not what MS is doing.

There will of course be collateral damage - as there is/was with the WGA
fiasco.
But I think that having this protection in place before the issue of Vista
onto the market, should help to cut down this damage. As opposed to the
intro of WGA onto computers with existing XP, and whatever rubbish was added
to the system.

Even MS admits there will be 1% false positives. That's hundreds of
thousands of computers!

I was quite expecting to read a far more draconian solution from MS. Like,
your system crashes if not activated within 30 days

Not crash, just unusable. I fail to see the difference.

We can only wait and see.
It will be something to keep an eye on.
I hope they remember to get a site set up in the community discussions
newsgroups, for feedback - I know they will need it.
Rgds
Antioch

I'm buying a few extra copies of XP as an investment ;-)

As I've posted before, MS made *billions* with 95/98/NT/W2K and the
activation/WGA process is just pure and simple greed camouflaged as
"stopping piracy". ALL it does is inconvenience paying customers while
the pirates crack away and laugh. The cracks for WPA and WGA came out
hours after they were released.

Alias

 

[Richard Urban]

I was expecting something like this from Microsoft 2-3 years ago. I am
surprised they took so long to implement this action.

Of course, adding it after the fact causes problems - as in WGA. This time
they are being very up front about it all, and leave themselves an opening
to modify said protection if what they have included is insufficient or
bypassed.

I believe it is their right to do so. Any public corporation today, that
does not try to maximize it's profit for the stock holders, is going to be
soundly rebuked by the board of directors. A private corporation isn't
driven by the same demands.

--

Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[Alias~-]

I was expecting something like this from Microsoft 2-3 years ago. I am
surprised they took so long to implement this action.

Of course, adding it after the fact causes problems - as in WGA. This time
they are being very up front about it all, and leave themselves an opening
to modify said protection if what they have included is insufficient or
bypassed.

I believe it is their right to do so.

But that's not what they're doing. They admit to at least a 1% false
positive rate which means making hundreds of thousands of paying
customers unhappy by forcing them to jump through hoops to become "genuine".

Any public corporation today, that
does not try to maximize it's profit for the stock holders, is going to be
soundly rebuked by the board of directors. A private corporation isn't
driven by the same demands.

Oh, so you think it's a good idea to trick paying customers into buying
copies of Vista that they don't need? And the reason is to keep the
stockholders and the board of directors happy? Real pirates will not be
affected by this just as they weren't affected by WPA/WGA in XP.

As I have stated many times, MS made *billions* off of pre XP operating
systems and the ONLY reason this is being done is greed, not concern for
paying customers, not to catch pirates or stop piracy, but to increase
the bottom line. It's disgusting.

Alias

 

[Homer J. Simpson]

As I've posted before, MS made *billions* with 95/98/NT/W2K and the

activation/WGA process is just pure and simple greed camouflaged as
"stopping piracy".

Are you suggesting MS should stop trying to make money then?

 

[Alias~-]

Are you suggesting MS should stop trying to make money then?

I didn't say that, now did I? What I *did* say is that WPA/WGA isn't
necessary to make billions like they did with pre-XP operating systems.
Reading is fundamental if you want to understand what someone has
written. http://www.rif.org/

Alias

 

[Richard Urban]

The 1% false positives is for XP, now isn't it. We have no idea what the
methods in Vista will show, though we can surmise.

--

Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[Alias~-]

The 1% false positives is for XP, now isn't it. We have no idea what the
methods in Vista will show, though we can surmise.

Considering that the new one will be able to see if all of a sudden your
copy has become a pirate without contacting MS on the Net, you tell me.

Change a NIC and, oops, you're not genuine.

Alias

 

[Richard Urban]

Again, YOU are surmising that scenario, aren't you.

You have to be - because it has not been implemented as of yet in Vista - it
is going to be.

--

Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[HeyBub]

Alias~- wrote:

Oh, so you think it's a good idea to trick paying customers into
buying copies of Vista that they don't need? And the reason is to
keep the stockholders and the board of directors happy? Real pirates
will not be affected by this just as they weren't affected by WPA/WGA
in XP.
As I have stated many times, MS made *billions* off of pre XP
operating systems and the ONLY reason this is being done is greed,
not concern for paying customers, not to catch pirates or stop
piracy, but to increase the bottom line. It's disgusting.

First, greed is good. There are few human endeavors more useful.

Second, the purpose of a corporation is to satisfy its shareholders. Period.
If the shareholders are satisfied in having the corporation foster some
social or moral good, that counts. If the shareholders are only concerned
with cash, that, instead, must be the driving force.

Real pirates may not, as you say, be affected; it's the wannabe pirates that
are the target.

As to the 1% collateral damage, that's more than acceptable. Zero would be
better, of course, but 1% is acceptable.

Think of vaccinations for communicable diseases; the goal is never to have
zero sick people. The goal is to not have millions of sick people. In
disease control, a five percent failure rate is acceptable. For some medical
procedures, a five percent MORTALITY rate is acceptable (when compared to
the alternatives).

 

[arachnid]

As I have stated many times, MS made *billions* off of pre XP operating
systems and the ONLY reason this is being done is greed, not concern for
paying customers, not to catch pirates or stop piracy, but to increase
the bottom line. It's disgusting.

Microsoft's bottom line and the reasons for their policies really don't
matter, nor do the abstract concepts of IP ownership. The question
for each consumer is what's a good deal for *them*. That is, whether and
how much they're willing to pay for a product that still remains under the
seller's heavy control after the sale, and that is a critical gateway to
a large software-and-training investment and their personal and business
files?

 

[Alias~-]

Again, YOU are surmising that scenario, aren't you.

You have to be - because it has not been implemented as of yet in Vista - it
is going to be.

What else will it be looking at to determine "genuineness" but your hard
ware? Doesn't take a rocket scientist ...

Alias

Regards, Richard Urban Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)
Quote from George Ankner: If you knew as much as you think you know, You
would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[Alias~-]

Alias~- wrote:



First, greed is good. There are few human endeavors more useful.

Um, "greed" is a desire and "endeavor" is an action that can, at times,
be based on greed. Bill Gates' endeavors in Africa I don't believe are
based on greed, although with him, I can't be sure.

Second, the purpose of a corporation is to satisfy its shareholders. Period.
If the shareholders are satisfied in having the corporation foster some
social or moral good, that counts. If the shareholders are only concerned
with cash, that, instead, must be the driving force.

Bad PR translates into less cash, even going out of business.

Real pirates may not, as you say, be affected; it's the wannabe pirates that
are the target.

Sure. Pull the other one, it has bells on it. "Wannabe" pirates can get
pirated Windows from the real pirates along with lots of advice.

As to the 1% collateral damage, that's more than acceptable. Zero would be
better, of course, but 1% is acceptable.

Hundreds of thousands of unhappy customers and growing is not acceptable
if you want your bottom line to continue to be joyful and happy.

Think of vaccinations for communicable diseases; the goal is never to have
zero sick people. The goal is to not have millions of sick people. In
disease control, a five percent failure rate is acceptable. For some medical
procedures, a five percent MORTALITY rate is acceptable (when compared to
the alternatives).

Think of no WGA and no WPA and no problems. Putting the paying customer
in the cross fire between the pirates and MS playing cat and mouse does
not make good fiscal sense. When you think someone is stealing from you,
there are legal procedures already in place for reporting a theft.

Alias

 

[Richard Urban]

But it may, in fact, turn out to be 99.99% accurate - may it not?

Again, we don't know at this point. We are all surmising "what" will be.

--

Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[R. McCarty]

Supposedly, the level of Piracy will be much lower with Windows Vista.
Reason being that an "Activation/License Count" provision will be used
in the Volume Licensing area. A large part of XP's licensing violations are
directly attributable to VLKs. Now that Enterprise has to contend with
and abide by their own "Activation" scheme there should be fewer Keys
and Vista instances that get outside the licensed organization. We'll see if
this premise turns out to be true.

 

[Alias~-]

Nope.

Wrong:

From:
http://www.informationweek.com/management/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=193104695

"In addition, users of genuine Vista must reactivate within three days
of 'a major hardware replacement,' said Microsoft, or face a crippled
computer."

Oops. Still want to buy HastaLaVista?

Alias

 

[Richard Urban]

"In addition, users of genuine Vista must reactivate within three days of
'a major hardware replacement,' said Microsoft, or face a crippled
computer."

Because you like to surmise so much, I will take the opportunity to do the
same here! I am sure that there are certain items you will be allowed to
replace before a certain threshold is reached that will cause this, the same
as currently allowed in Windows XP.



--

Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[Alias~-]

Because you like to surmise so much, I will take the opportunity to do the
same here!

Um, I am NOT surmising. That was a direct quote from MS' white paper.

I am sure that there are certain items you will be allowed to
replace before a certain threshold is reached that will cause this, the same
as currently allowed in Windows XP.

As usual, MS doesn't say how many hardware changes are allowed before
one has to grovel to a customer service agent in Pakistan or buy a new
copy of Vista. I don't surmise anything. It isn't quoted in that article
and isn't revealed in their White Paper either. I wonder if the NIC will
have three points like it does with XP. I also wonder if MS will reveal
how much is too much before or after Vista is released. I vote for "after".

In any event, Vista -- like XP -- can and will be a nightmare for
hundreds of thousands of paying customers because 1% false positives is
just fine with MS.

Alias

 

[andre]

I'm amazed at what paying customers will put up with so that someone else
can get rich.

The thought that Microsoft can degrade your PC, essentially, whenever they
want is frightening.

So sad.