 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Windows Forum / Windows XP / General Topics 1 / May 2008Windows Genuine Advantage
Windows Genuine Advantage http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1754886,00.asp Instead of debating the merits of Genuine Advantage I'm writing this post to get advice on configuration steps for brand new computers once the initiative starts. INSTALLING BRAND NEW SYSTEMS OFF-LINE I'm under the impression that most serious administrators keep their machines off-line until they are patched (I do). When an unpatched system goes on-line the window of vulnerability may be one minute or one day depending on who you ask, but I think most of us agree that the window is becomming shorter each year as viruses become more aggressive. (I recall that the Blaster virus was capable of infecting an entire subnet in minutes.) QUESTIONS Here are my questions for home users. If Joe downloads updates through the Microsoft Download Center using Genuine Advantage, what's to stop Joe from burning a CD for Mary with the executable update files? Will Mary be prevented from installing the patches off-line? Thus, a window of vulnerabiltiy? What's the absolute best way for Mary to handle the situation? Please don't tell me it shouldn't be that way, just tell me the best answer! Similarly, can we download patches to a Macintosh or Linux computer to distribute to a PC? Here are some questions for business: SUS Servers have the ability to download all Microsoft updates. Will SUS (or SMS) undergo changes under the Windows Genuine Advantage initiative? Will each client computer share key codes with SUS? (That would be a huge addition to what is now, a very lean update server.) So far I'm lead to believe that just one key code would be required but I haven't found the information on the Microsoft website. Does anyone have a link? Two similar questions about bulk licensing: If an organization has purchased multiple computers through an OEM dealer must each computer go through Genuine Advantage? If site licenses (or upgrade licenses) are purchased through Microsoft's EOPEN Open Licensing Program must each individual system go through Genuine Advantage? WORK / HOME I guess it's unlikely there will be problems for institutions installing computers with RIS, Ghost, or other tools. There will be always be a way for us to build safe computers for business, education, etc. Genuine Advantage is just another part of the routine now. I'm a little less optomistic for home users than I am for business. Legitimate users will connect to the internet and race against the clock to reach a Genuine Advantage web server and a Windows Update web server. During that time the neighbor's unpatched, unlicensed, infected computer has a chance of making an attack. This has always been the case, but now this initiative is likely to cause a surge in unprotected systems. That means more of your fellow DSL, Cable Modem, or dial-up users are likely to attack you. (That's the point of most of the blogs and articles I've read, and I tend to agree.) In the long run, it's good news for tech-minded people who earn a living fixing compters for homes and small businesses, but casual users (those with and without valid licenses) are more or less in a fog. I'm trying to be neutral, but I have to make a comment about Microsoft. I don't think MS knows how to break the fog; I don't think they really know how to communicate with the average Joe. My confidence would be restored by an update check at boot, or ip enable, that is regulated by a firewall - and requires no understanding by the user. Then I'd stop advocating Mac OS-X and encourage folks to continue using Windows. (Hey, I didn't stay as neutral as I intended, but it's tough to do.) Links would be appreciated. I didn't find my answers at TechNet, maybe there is another part of Microsoft's site with good info. -Tom > Windows Genuine Advantage > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1754886,00.asp > > Instead of debating the merits of Genuine Advantage I'm writing this > post to get advice on configuration steps for brand new computers once > the initiative starts. Keeping in mind that known and confirmed pirated copies will still be freely updated through Automatic Update... Your concerns seem a bit unfounded. Any home user that is behind even a mediocre broadband router is plenty safe for the purpose of automatic updates. On the other hand, any home user directly connected to the Internet without a router is playing worm-roulette regardless of whether or not they patch online or offline. I imagine the same is true for domain networks. What business has domain client computers in the DMZ? carl > Windows Genuine Advantage > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1754886,00.asp > > Instead of debating the merits of Genuine Advantage I'm writing this > post to get advice on configuration steps for brand new computers once > the initiative starts. >Keeping in mind that known and confirmed pirated copies will still be >freely >updated through Automatic Update... Why do you believe that pirated copes will be updated by Automatic (Windows) Update. The point of WGA is to ensure that only genuine legal Windows machines have access to our updates.  SignatureRegards, Mike -- Mike Brannigan [Microsoft] This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these newsgroups > Windows Genuine Advantage > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1754886,00.asp > > Instead of debating the merits of Genuine Advantage I'm writing this > post to get advice on configuration steps for brand new computers once > the initiative starts. Keeping in mind that known and confirmed pirated copies will still be freely updated through Automatic Update... Your concerns seem a bit unfounded. Any home user that is behind even a mediocre broadband router is plenty safe for the purpose of automatic updates. On the other hand, any home user directly connected to the Internet without a router is playing worm-roulette regardless of whether or not they patch online or offline. I imagine the same is true for domain networks. What business has domain client computers in the DMZ? carl >> Windows Genuine Advantage >> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1754886,00.asp [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > The point of WGA is to ensure that only genuine legal Windows machines have > access to our updates. Apparently, that is not exactly the point... From PC World Article: "Validation is not required for Windows Automatic Updates, says David Lazar, a director in Microsoft's Windows Client group." http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,119458,pg,1,RSS,RSS,00.asp Regards, carl No one answered the op original question. I am adding some of my own What about preinstalled system they are installed with a different key than the key that is listed on the back or bottom of the machine? What if you are trying to patch a windows system that cannot access the internet? You use a Linux machine? Can not download it, because your using another system? What about business and people that use auto update? Are they going to have to enter the key. I know this one boss who does not have the time to do this always busy. What about volume license customers? Sorry if any question is a duplicate. What happen if your version is legal but Windows Genuine Advantage says it not. Greg R Greg R wrote: >What about preinstalled system they are installed with a different key >than the key that is listed on the back or bottom of the machine? For ALL purposes use the key on the machine label SignatureAlex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies) Bournemouth, U.K. Alexn@mvps.D8E8L.org (remove the D8 bit) >-----Original Message----- >"Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" <mikebran@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:uG4mD7ZBFHA.3976@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... >> "Tom Penharston" <thinkpersuasion@netscape.net> wrote in message news:1106959280.619986.218910@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com ... >>> Windows Genuine Advantage >>> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1754886,00.asp [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >"Validation is not required for Windows Automatic Updates, says David Lazar, a director in Microsoft's Windows Client group." >http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,119458,pg,1,RSS,RSS,00.asp > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >. >microsoft apparently is trying to close that loophole with pirated copies being allowed updates ,originally they were allowed updates so they would be patched and less likley to infect the rest of us,I dont know how microsoft will balance stopping pirated copies from getting updates against pirated copies being unpatched and infected everyone else,apparently the new plan is no updates for pirated copies. There was a PC World article that said Microsoft will allow pirated copies of XP to be updated via automatic updates as a good will gesture and to help keep the Internet safer for everyone. : > Windows Genuine Advantage : > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1754886,00.asp [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] : : Keeping in mind that known and confirmed pirated copies will still be freely : updated through Automatic Update... : [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] : : carl > There was a PC World article that said Microsoft will allow pirated copies > of > XP to be updated via automatic updates as a good will gesture and to help > keep the Internet safer for everyone. I read that but that is only the current position - there is no reason to assume that as WGA extends we will continue to support the updating fo obviously pirated/stolen copes of Windows XP. Illegal users should endeavour to legitimatize their use of Windows XP as soon as possible SignatureRegards, Mike -- Mike Brannigan [Microsoft] This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these newsgroups > There was a PC World article that said Microsoft will allow pirated copies > of [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > : > : carl Thanks for your post Mike and will there be more information for illegal users especially the ones who do not realize they are using illegal software to get legal software. Will a discount be made available for them? In addition, will there be any Microsoft programs to help out the poor and disadvantaged who are using illegal copies? I know companies need to make money in order for our capitalistic society to work but I still think we need to help the less fortunate. Thanks in advance and I appreciate any response and value the response(s) greatly. : > There was a PC World article that said Microsoft will allow pirated copies : > of [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] : > : : > : carl > Thanks for your post Mike and will there be more information for illegal > users especially the ones who do not realize they are using illegal [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > response > and value the response(s) greatly. Dan, (the follow addresses the issue from the perspective of a purchaser of a pirate copy without knowledge of that piracy - not the deliberate piracy) The current situation is that if an when you find out you have an illegal copy of Windows XP that was installed on your PC without your knowledge (preinstalled by the seller etc) then you need to address this with them. If you cannot resolve this issue with them then as you have no right to use that product you must purchase a full copy of Windows XP to legitimize your system if you wish to continue to use that product. We currently do not offer discounts as this would be akin to you buying a stolen car without your knowledge and then expecting the manufacturer to allow you to buy one for a reduced price once your use of stolen goods was revealed. It is very important that anyone using Windows or buying a PC with Windows preinstalled or supplied with it ensures that they are legitimate. We make this information available at http://www.howtotell.com/ and http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/default.mspx We make no distinction between social status or financial capabilities in this matter. We offer Windows under various programs and licensing terms to various classes of user (students, charities etc). Microsoft has engaged in a number of projects to assist in PC awareness and access for more disadvantaged sectors of various communities. SignatureRegards, Mike -- Mike Brannigan [Microsoft] This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these newsgroups > Thanks for your post Mike and will there be more information for illegal > users especially the ones who do not realize they are using illegal [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] > : > : > : > : carl "Mike Brannigan [MSFT]", This is a brilliant post, and I would like to add to it, just a little bit. Mike mentions that we offer licensing terms to various classes of user, such as a student, charities, etc. What is amazing about some of these programs is the access to our software! For example: An adult decides to take a night-class in basic programming in either C# or VB.NET at their local community college, and that college is enrolled in the Microsoft Developer Network Academic Alliance program. Under this license, all programming students have access to *all* *current* Microsoft software. That's right. For the cost of attending a community college class, and with permission of the particular college department chair, the "student" may install unlimited single user licensed copies of Windows XP Professional, Visual Studio .NET 2003 Academic Edition, Microsoft Office System 2003, etc, and every other program "necessary" to be productive in a learning environment for NO additional cost--when if that same individual were to order those first few products from a leading computer products website, it would cost $1837.84 before taxes. Here is how that figure breaks out: Microsoft Windows XP Professional with SP2: $ 299.00 Microsoft Visual Studio .NET Professional Edition: 1138.85 (Academic is identical, and has a bit more) Microsoft Office Standard Edition 2003: 399.99 (Office Standard is identical to Academic) There are many job and worker retraining programs, wherein the government provides funding to let workers attend class and improve their job skills. Whatever the price is per credit at a local community college, Microsoft is offering an outstanding and unbelievable bargain to students everywhere. We will see that the real problem is the deliberate pirate, and the genuine pain will be very low. Sincerely, Pat Walters [MSFT] > > Thanks for your post Mike and will there be more information for illegal > > users especially the ones who do not realize they are using illegal [quoted text clipped - 122 lines] > > : > : > > : > : carl I think that if a student can afford to go to college. They can afford the software. You say what about people on scholarships. That should be included in the price. You say what about people that get financial aid. That also show be included in the price. Pat you forgot to mention one thing. Some software installation require you to bring the computer in to install the software. A laptop that easy. A desktop is not that easy. I on low income and I have a disability and there is no discount for me. The computer was cheap and so is my internet service. The software is not. This is why some people are looking into Linux and open office. Greg R As a former company director I am well aware of the need to make profit and all that. However, I am also aware that in almost every case I can think of, once a product has amortised its development cost, its price to the consumer is reduced, often very considerably. For example, the first 2-speed CD player I bought for my 50MHz 486 machine cost ?250. Today, if you can find one, you can buy it at 52-speed for about ?9. Hard drives which once cost in the thousands are now less than ?100. Remember when the Apple II 5MB hard drive came on sale at ?500? And Apple's first laser printer was ?7600? And the Mac SCSI 400k external floppy drive was ?800? Our first family television cost the equivalent of ?4000 in 1937; now the same size set (12" screen black and white) would cost around ?20 if you could find one. The same sort of comparisons apply to pretty well every product in the free world, even those sold by monopolies. Now Microsoft, almost alone in the great wide world, sees no need to reduce the retail price of its operating systems, even though they will have recovered their costs over and over, while at the same time, constantly bleating about piracy. Talk about pots calling kettles black! If they used the same common sense that operates in every other commercial venture, they would sell XP now for around ?10, and the pirates would all go bust overnight. By all means charge the earth for Longhorn when it arrives, and those habitual early adopters will pay the price. But once the development costs are recovered, say after the first 40 million sales, reduce the price in stages to encourage the impecunious amongst us to stay with MS and think what wonderful chaps those Microsoft people are! MS will still be making a huge profit even if they give the OS away after a couple of years. But even if they did have a reduced profit percentage, they won't go broke, and they will feel all warm inside having given something back to the people who gave them their millions and billions in the first place. Isn't that better than the presumably beleaguered feeling they must have now, with governments everywhere attacking them, and customers attacking them, and rivals jumping on every bandwagon they can find? I think MS may be in danger of running out of goodwill. As they say in the TV adverts for financial investments, 'Don't forget investments can go down as well as up'. David Kelsey Greg R wrote: > I think that if a student can afford to go to college. They can > afford the software. You say what about people on scholarships. That [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Greg R How many times do I need to "prove" to Microsoft that my copy of Windows is legitimate? I am VERY tired of having to constantly install Windows Validation tools with my other updates AND give firewall permission to allow the Windows Genuine Advantage tool to access the internet? Why should this tool have to access the internet EVERY day? Somthing funny is going on here . . . Frank > > Thanks for your post Mike and will there be more information for illegal > > users especially the ones who do not realize they are using illegal [quoted text clipped - 122 lines] > > : > : > > : > : carl It would appear that you do it as many times as MS say jump - then you jump I thought this thread was dead - things have moved on to others more recent??? > How many times do I need to "prove" to Microsoft that my copy of Windows > is [quoted text clipped - 173 lines] >> > : > : >> > : > : carl > It would appear that you do it as many times as MS say jump - then you jump > I thought this thread was dead - things have moved on to others more > recent??? And you have added some more fuel to this fire!! I was prepared to leave it at that - but you have done your bit as well???? Yet it does not beat a previous Kurt/Alias/Leythos saga - which is a surprise - I had thought this one still had some mileage. Perhaps it might have, had there not been all the other WGA threads. Antioch >> It would appear that you do it as many times as MS say jump - then you >> jump >> I thought this thread was dead - things have moved on to others more >> recent??? > > And you have added some more fuel to this fire!! The trio (Kurt/Alias/Leythos) are capable of starting a riot in an empty room even when they are the only ones in that room!! As to my bit, I don't preach to move on as some old messages can be very useful to hold some selected people responsible for their acts! hth > I was prepared to leave it at that - but you have done your bit as well???? > Yet it does not beat a previous Kurt/Alias/Leythos saga - which is a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > > > And you have added some more fuel to this fire!! Whoops, I had better make a note of that - in case my past catches up with me, via your saved files :-) :-) Rgds & bye for now Antioch > The trio (Kurt/Alias/Leythos) are capable of starting a riot in an empty > room even when they are the only ones in that room!! [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >> > >> > And you have added some more fuel to this fire!! >Why do you believe that pirated copes will be updated by Automatic (Windows) >Update. >The point of WGA is to ensure that only genuine legal Windows machines have >access to our updates. Our information is that security updates will be available to all through Windows Auto Update, but not optional items SignatureAlex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies) Bournemouth, U.K. Alexn@mvps.D8E8L.org (remove the D8 bit) | >Why do you believe that pirated copes will be updated by Automatic (Windows) | >Update. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | Our information is that security updates will be available to all | through Windows Auto Update, but not optional items Of course, the crackers can download the "optional items", burn them to a CD and install them on pirated computers ... I think that may be true but at least Microsoft is making things more difficult for hackers. In addition since 9-11-01 our lives in the U.S. are more difficult and inconvenient but I thank the stars above that I still have more freedom then oppressive regimes around the world in places like Syria. : | >Why do you believe that pirated copes will be updated by Automatic : (Windows) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] : Of course, the crackers can download the "optional items", burn them to a CD : and install them on pirated computers ... |I think that may be true but at least Microsoft is making things more | difficult for hackers. In addition since 9-11-01 our lives in the U.S. are | more difficult and inconvenient but I thank the stars above that I still have | more freedom then oppressive regimes around the world in places like Syria. Yeah, really groovy. MS' new program has this as a basis: guilty until proven innocent. How "American" and non "Syrian" is that? SignatureAlias Use the Reply to Sender feature of your news reader program to email me. Utiliza Responder al Remitente para mandarme un mail. | | : | >Why do you believe that pirated copes will be updated by Automatic [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] | CD | : and install them on pirated computers ... > |I think that may be true but at least Microsoft is making things more > | difficult for hackers. In addition since 9-11-01 our lives in the U.S. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Yeah, really groovy. MS' new program has this as a basis: guilty until > proven innocent. How "American" and non "Syrian" is that? If your copy of Windows is genuine then you have no issue at all with support for Windows download or how so ever WGA is extended to ensure only legitimate Windows opertaing system licensed users are supported. SignatureRegards, Mike -- Mike Brannigan [Microsoft] This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these newsgroups > |I think that may be true but at least Microsoft is making things more > | difficult for hackers. In addition since 9-11-01 our lives in the U.S. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > | CD > | : and install them on pirated computers ... | "Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.com> wrote | > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] | support for Windows download or how so ever WGA is extended to ensure only | legitimate Windows opertaing system licensed users are supported. Like I said, paying customers with genuine copies of Windows are assumed to be guilty until they can prove their innocence by passing the WGA test. Not good PR, Microsoft and a PITA. For the crackers and pirates, all WGA does is provide another cracking challenge and so the pissing contest continues with paying customers caught in the crossfire. SignatureAlias Use the Reply to Sender feature of your news reader program to email me. Utiliza Responder al Remitente para mandarme un mail. Well I can see both sides of the coin and so unfortunately have no further comment unless someone else comments and something comes to mind. : | "Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.com> wrote : | > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] : provide another cracking challenge and so the pissing contest continues with : paying customers caught in the crossfire. > Like I said, paying customers with genuine copies of Windows are assumed > to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > with > paying customers caught in the crossfire. No one is being assumed of any guilt. A legitimate user can use Windows download without any issues - where is the implication of assumed guilt in that ? They click a button and they get there download. Does having a key to your front door assume you are guilty of not having a right of access to your own home ? - no it ensures that only persons you want to allow access have access and "helps" to keep the other out. SignatureRegards, Mike -- Mike Brannigan [Microsoft] This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these newsgroups > | "Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.com> wrote > | > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > with > paying customers caught in the crossfire. | "Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.com> wrote | >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] | | No one is being assumed of any guilt. Then why the test? The test, INTRINSICALLY, assumes guilt. If no guilt were assumed, there would be no test for those who have activated. | A legitimate user can use Windows download without any issues - where is the | implication of assumed guilt in that ? The test, obviously. | They click a button and they get there download. If they pass the test. How do we know that real MS XP software will pass the test? And, if it doesn't, what recourse does the paying customer have to PROVE HIS OR HER INNOCENCE? | Does having a key to your front door assume you are guilty of not having a | right of access to your own home ? - no it ensures that only persons you | want to allow access have access and "helps" to keep the other out. Bad analogy. I already opened the door with the activation key and, lo and behold, there is another door. Once the crackers get around that door, will there be another ad infinitum? Like I said, the only ones who will suffer from this are paying customers, especially non techie paying customers. The crackers will get around it. Is there anything MS has done that you *don't* support? SignatureAlias Use the Reply to Sender feature of your news reader program to email me. Utiliza Responder al Remitente para mandarme un mail. > | "Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.com> wrote > | >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > were > assumed, there would be no test for those who have activated. This is not about "guilt" - it is about ensuring that we provide the best service to our paying customers who legitimacy use Windows. This process like WPA has become necessary because of casual and other forms of piracy. > | A legitimate user can use Windows download without any issues - where is > the > | implication of assumed guilt in that ? > > The test, obviously. See answer above - this is not about concepts of guilt. > | They click a button and they get there download. > > If they pass the test. How do we know that real MS XP software will pass > the > test? And, if it doesn't, what recourse does the paying customer have to > PROVE HIS OR HER INNOCENCE? We are working to ensure that only illegitimate users are impacted. As we expand WGA we will see if there are cases of false readings on legitimacy - and these users will contact their local support for assistance - if this occurs. Hence the roll out program to test this just as we did with WPA prior going global with it. > | Does having a key to your front door assume you are guilty of not having > a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > will > there be another ad infinitum? Irrespective of the analogy WGA is to ensure that we provide the best support to those that pay for our product. And yes the pirates who brought WPA and now WGA upon you will no doubt be working to defeat this and we will response with according measure, that is unfortunately the world we live in today with software piracy. > Like I said, the only ones who will suffer from this are paying customers, > especially non techie paying customers. The crackers will get around it. > Is > there anything MS has done that you *don't* support? Paying customers will not be impacted as the legitimate users will not see anything - only those uses of pirate/illegitimate software will be impacted. I fail to understand you last question. We obviously disagree on the use of technologies such as WPA and WGA to ensure that legitimate users are give access to product and services etc that they pay for while endeavouring to restrict those who would steal/pirate software. I see no problem personally supporting WPA and WGA since I pay for all my software that I use. SignatureRegards, Mike -- Mike Brannigan [Microsoft] This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these newsgroups > | "Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.com> wrote > | >> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > Is > there anything MS has done that you *don't* support? | > | "Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.com> wrote | > | >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] | service to our paying customers who legitimacy use Windows. This process | like WPA has become necessary because of casual and other forms of piracy. OK, it assumes your version is pirated until you prove otherwise, your semantic spin nothwithstanding. | > | A legitimate user can use Windows download without any issues - where is | > the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | | See answer above - this is not about concepts of guilt. See reply above. It does assume you have a pirated version until you prove otherwise with the test, the number or the three questions. | > | They click a button and they get there download. | > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] | > | We are working to ensure that only illegitimate users are impacted. How comforting. And if your work doesn't work? As I have pointed out, legitimate users will be impacted. As we | expand WGA we will see if there are cases of false readings on legitimacy - | and these users will contact their local support for assistance - if this | occurs. Hence the roll out program to test this just as we did with WPA | prior going global with it. Testing to see if it works or not does not change the fact that one has to prove that one has a legit copy before one can download. Sooo, it is assumed that you don't have a legit copy. | > | Does having a key to your front door assume you are guilty of not having | > a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] | Irrespective of the analogy WGA is to ensure that we provide the best | support to those that pay for our product. No, it's to ensure that MS only gives downloads to legit copies. Concern for the customer is spin and not a fact. | And yes the pirates who brought WPA and now WGA upon you will no doubt be | working to defeat this and we will response with according measure, that is | unfortunately the world we live in today with software piracy. No, that is MS' problem and should not be fluffed off on paying customers. I am testing Linux as we speak on a test computer due to this crap and I don't think I will be the only one ... I am also seriously considering buying a Mini Mac. | > Like I said, the only ones who will suffer from this are paying customers, | > especially non techie paying customers. The crackers will get around it. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | Paying customers will not be impacted as the legitimate users will not see | anything - only those uses of pirate/illegitimate software will be impacted. Yes, paying customers have to go through yet another activation trip and they will be able to "see" it when they go to WU. Crackers won't have to do that. | I fail to understand you last question. We obviously disagree on the use of | technologies such as WPA and WGA to ensure that legitimate users are give | access to product and services etc that they pay for while endeavouring to | restrict those who would steal/pirate software. I see no problem personally | supporting WPA and WGA since I pay for all my software that I use. Of course not, you work for MS and they can do no wrong in your eyes and all of your posts reflect that bias. I pay for all my software whether I use it or not. SignatureAlias Use the Reply to Sender feature of your news reader program to email me. Utiliza Responder al Remitente para mandarme un mail. > See reply above. It does assume you have a pirated version until you prove > otherwise with the test, the number or the three questions. Actually, there is nothing in the purchase of XP that entitles you to any updates or patches. In fact, it's just nice of MS to provide them without a support contract. The assumptions are yours. Signaturespam999free@rrohio.com remove 999 in order to email me | > See reply above. It does assume you have a pirated version until you prove | > otherwise with the test, the number or the three questions. | | Actually, there is nothing in the purchase of XP that entitles you to any | updates or patches. In fact, it's just nice of MS to provide them without | a support contract. Really? They make a product that isn't complete and you tell me I can't expect them to fix a product that is defective? | The assumptions are yours. No, they are common sense and logic, something you seemed to have lost while you were busy sticking your nose of MS' a.s. But I'm game, explain to everyone how having to prove your copy is legit doesn't assume it isn't. Can you do it????????? SignatureAlias Use the Reply to Sender feature of your news reader program to email me. Utiliza Responder al Remitente para mandarme un mail. > | > See reply above. It does assume you have a pirated version until you > prove [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Really? They make a product that isn't complete and you tell me I can't > expect them to fix a product that is defective? We will fix, patch and provide enhancements to a product for those that paid for it. > | The assumptions are yours. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Can you do it????????? Your copy is in an unknown state until you provide evidence one way or the other- this is not an assumption of any specifc state just the clarification of an unknown. Look at a PC and ask your self - is it legitimate or not. You actually cannot make any statement either way - if you choose to assume one position or the other then you may be wrong. If you take a neutral position and then clarify the state you will know precisely. We choose to not assume anything and believe that a simple valid or not, will do to clarify the position. SignatureRegards, Mike -- Mike Brannigan [Microsoft] This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these newsgroups > | > See reply above. It does assume you have a pirated version until you > prove [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Can you do it????????? | > | > See reply above. It does assume you have a pirated version until you | > prove [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] | We will fix, patch and provide enhancements to a product for those that paid | for it. And prove it. I feel I proved it when I forked over the money. | > | The assumptions are yours. | > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] | other- this is not an assumption of any specifc state just the clarification | of an unknown. I proved it when I forked over the money to pay for it. | Look at a PC and ask your self - is it legitimate or not. I don't need to. I know I forked over the money and paid for it. Now you want me to fork over my time and install a program on my computer. What's next? | You actually cannot make any statement either way - if you choose to assume | one position or the other then you may be wrong. If you take a neutral | position and then clarify the state you will know precisely. We choose to | not assume anything and believe that a simple valid or not, will do to | clarify the position. MS is assuming it isn't legit until proven otherwise, no matter how you want to spin it and, trust me, this will not be good for MS. Most people will think like I do and start considering a Mini Mac | This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no | rights Just like the spin about this latest test of one's software; "no warranties and confers no rights". SignatureAlias Use the Reply to Sender feature of your news reader program to email me. Utiliza Responder al Remitente para mandarme un mail. | | Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] | > | > Can you do it????????? > I don't need to. I know I forked over the money and paid for it. Now you > want me to fork over my time and install a program on my computer. What's > next? You are free to keep your machine in the same state it was when you bought Windows XP - you don't have to apply ANY updates or service patches. The choice to updates is your choice. MS is not forcing you to do anything unless you want FREE things from them. If you want the updates then you need to agree to them, get use to it, this is not a MS issue, many vendors do this - go complain in their groups too. Signaturespam999free@rrohio.com remove 999 in order to email me | > I don't need to. I know I forked over the money and paid for it. Now you | > want me to fork over my time and install a program on my computer. What's [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] | this is not a MS issue, many vendors do this - go complain in their groups | too. I paid for XP. If there are updates, I paid for those too, just like any other software or drivers for hardware for that matter. Jesus you guys are full of spin. This will be a PR disaster and Apple must be licking its chops. Do you really think the Mini Mac being released the same time as this reactivation crap is a coincidence!? SignatureAlias Use the Reply to Sender feature of your news reader program to email me. Utiliza Responder al Remitente para mandarme un mail. > | > I don't need to. I know I forked over the money and paid for it. Now you > | > want me to fork over my time and install a program on my computer. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I paid for XP. Sort of - you paid for a license that allows you to USE, not own XP. > If there are updates, I paid for those too, just like any > other software or drivers for hardware for that matter. You didn't pay for updates, you get them at the whim of the vendor. > Jesus you guys are > full of spin. This will be a PR disaster and Apple must be licking its > chops. Do you really think the Mini Mac being released the same time as this > reactivation crap is a coincidence!? Apple is not in competition with Windows any more - they are now in competition with the Linux OS (or did you miss that Apple OS/X is a version of BSD). Activation is only a problem for thieves, ethical people don't have any issues with it. Signaturespam999free@rrohio.com remove 999 in order to email me | > | > I don't need to. I know I forked over the money and paid for it. Now you | > | > want me to fork over my time and install a program on my computer. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] | | Sort of - you paid for a license that allows you to USE, not own XP. I know, another of my pet peeves. | > If there are updates, I paid for those too, just like any | > other software or drivers for hardware for that matter. | | You didn't pay for updates, you get them at the whim of the vendor. How snotty of them -- and you. Money back guarantee, eh? Was this decision made in the PR department? Sales? | > Jesus you guys are | > full of spin. This will be a PR disaster and Apple must be licking its [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] | competition with the Linux OS (or did you miss that Apple OS/X is a | version of BSD). The Mini Mac is pretty cool and priced right. You may (gasp!) be wrong. | Activation is only a problem for thieves, ethical people don't have any | issues with it. You mean you don't have an issue with it. I pay for software and, sir, I do have an issue with it. It's a PITA, period. Ethics have nothing to do with it that is nothing but a red herring. We are talking about PAYING customers having a problem with it NOT thieves. SignatureAlias Use the Reply to Sender feature of your news reader program to email me. Utiliza Responder al Remitente para mandarme un mail. WGA has realistically no impact to legitimate end users. Discussion of assumed guilt or guilty until proven otherwise is pointless. The only one who will see any significant impact are those who use pirated software. If people did not pirate software we would not be forced to take measures to ensure only those paying customers get the downloads they want. Maybe you should direct your efforts at those pirates instead, as it is them that have forced this on you. SignatureRegards, Mike -- Mike Brannigan [Microsoft] This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these newsgroups > | > | "Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.com> wrote > | > | >> [quoted text clipped - 135 lines] > it > or not. Mike, are you saying you have a discount programs for people on disability for oses and other software? If so, contact info please. I live in Indiana. What if the seller claims they legally bought it but Windows Genuine Advantage says it not? Who right? I hope Microsoft gives you a number, so you can prove that the copy is legally bought. Will I need to change my key on my preinstalled system before I get can get to windows to update automatically? Is there a way I can download a patch so I won't have to enter a number each time I want a download? Greg R > Mike, are you saying you have a discount programs for people on > disability for oses and other software? If so, contact info please. I > live in Indiana. Sorry ?? - if you aer referring to my other reply to Dan - then we as I said we offer various licensing terms to various classes of users students and charities being examples of these. We (Microsoft) have also engaged in various charitable programs over the last few years as regards proving access to PCs and software to various communities. I am not aware of any discount programs for people with disabilities - our licensing options are covered on out web site. > What if the seller claims they legally bought it but Windows Genuine > Advantage says it not? Who right? I hope Microsoft gives you a > number, so you can prove that the copy is legally bought. If your product fails the WGA test you could ring the support number for your area and product. > Will I need to change my key on my preinstalled system before I get > can get to windows to update automatically? Windows Update is currently not effected by WGA. If you have an invalid/legal/pirate WPA key used on your system today you should endeavour to make your elf legitimate before you are more impacted then not being give access to the Downloads site. > Is there a way I can download a patch so I won't have to enter a > number each time I want a download? What number ?? You do not have to enter any numbers to download if you system is legitimate. If not you need to go buy a full copy of Windows. SignatureRegards, Mike -- Mike Brannigan [Microsoft] This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these newsgroups > Mike, are you saying you have a discount programs for people on > disability for oses and other software? If so, contact info please. I [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Greg R | > Is there a way I can download a patch so I won't have to enter a | > number each time I want a download? | | What number ?? You do not have to enter any numbers to download if you | system is legitimate. If not you need to go buy a full copy of Windows. And you work for Microsoft??? LOL! You can either let MS install a program on your computer to see if your XP is legit or you can enter your Product Key or you can answer three questions. In ALL cases, MS is the judge and you are the defendant and it really sucks. From: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6868504/ " Customers who visit the manual Windows Update site will be asked to prove that their copies of Windows are legitimate [Alias's note: guilty until proven innocent] by allowing Microsoft's system to automatically run a check, or by providing a *****product identification number*****. Users who have lost that number will be asked three basic questions, and if they are deemed to be acting in good faith they will be given a free replacement key. " It would seem to me that if you really work for MS you would know about this ... and notice it says "if they are ***deemed*** acting in good faith". And if they are deemed not to be acting in good faith by some guy in India who is in a bad mood??? SignatureAlias Use the Reply to Sender feature of your news reader program to email me. Utiliza Responder al Remitente para mandarme un mail. > | > Is there a way I can download a patch so I won't have to enter a > | > number each time I want a download? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > you > are the defendant and it really sucks. Exactly - why would you bother continuously having to retype in a number when we provide you the option of just downloading the control and your done. Yes we are the judge - who else could it be - we know what our software looks like and we know how to detect if it is legitimate. SignatureRegards, Mike -- Mike Brannigan [Microsoft] This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these newsgroups > | > Is there a way I can download a patch so I won't have to enter a > | > number each time I want a download? [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > if they are deemed not to be acting in good faith by some guy in India who > is in a bad mood??? | > | > Is there a way I can download a patch so I won't have to enter a | > | > number each time I want a download? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] | | Exactly - Glad to see you agree that it sucks. About time. | why would you bother continuously having to retype in a number | when we provide you the option of just downloading the control and your | done. Not wanting programs on my computer that are not necessary, obviously. | Yes we are the judge - who else could it be - we know what our software | looks like and we know how to detect if it is legitimate. Thanks for confirming my points, even if you don't even realize you did it. SignatureAlias Use the Reply to Sender feature of your news reader program to email me. Utiliza Responder al Remitente para mandarme un mail. I confirmed nothing of your opinions etc. WGA is a total non issue to legitimate users. SignatureRegards, Mike -- Mike Brannigan [Microsoft] This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these newsgroups > | > | > Is there a way I can download a patch so I won't have to enter a > | > | > number each time I want a download? [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Thanks for confirming my points, even if you don't even realize you did > it. |I confirmed nothing of your opinions etc. Oh, when you typed "exactly", what did you mean? | WGA is a total non issue to legitimate users. I am a legitimate user and it's obviously an issue with me and many people I know. It's a total non issue to MS apologists only. I know a little about computers and it bothers me. Imagine when this trip hits the average computer user. They will be confused, angry, and many will not update for fear that the legal XP they bought might not pass the test due to some technical error and they need their computer to do other things than pass an MS test to determine if they are thieves or not. Now don't tell me that MS doesn't make technical errors as MS is constantly "improving" their product to patch its flaws. SignatureAlias Use the Reply to Sender feature of your news reader program to email me. Utiliza Responder al Remitente para mandarme un mail. | | > | > | > Is there a way I can download a patch so I won't have to enter a [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] | > Thanks for confirming my points, even if you don't even realize you did | > it. > I am a legitimate user and it's obviously an issue with me and many people I > know. We service many hundreds of systems, none of their owners are concerned, and neither am I. I own more than 60 licenses of XP myself and it doesn't even concern me - and I make a living with this stuff. Maybe you're just reading more into it than you need to. > It's a total non issue to MS apologists only. I know a little about > computers and it bothers me. Imagine when this trip hits the average > computer user. They will be confused, angry, and many will not update for > fear that the legal XP they bought might not pass the test due to some > technical error Actually, most users won't be confused or angry and will just merrily click their way through it without a concern at all. It's the ones that wear the tin-foil hats and the pirates that get all concerned and angry. Since you obviously don't like the way that MS is taking THEIR product, suck it up and choose to go the non-MS route, or don't you like a totally free OS and apps? Signaturespam999free@rrohio.com remove 999 in order to email me | > I am a legitimate user and it's obviously an issue with me and many people I | > know. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | even concern me - and I make a living with this stuff. Maybe you're just | reading more into it than you need to. Considering that the process hasn't begun yet, perhaps you would need 30 of those licences to be turned down to know what I am talking about. | > It's a total non issue to MS apologists only. I know a little about | > computers and it bothers me. Imagine when this trip hits the average [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] | click their way through it without a concern at all. It's the ones that | wear the tin-foil hats and the pirates that get all concerned and angry. Um, they will become concerned if they don't pass the Thief test, now won't they? | Since you obviously don't like the way that MS is taking THEIR product, | suck it up and choose to go the non-MS route, or don't you like a totally | free OS and apps? We are testing Linux right now, although I really didn't want to go through that learning curve but I will if MS insists on this kind of crap. SignatureAlias Use the Reply to Sender feature of your news reader program to email me. Utiliza Responder al Remitente para mandarme un mail. > | > I am a legitimate user and it's obviously an issue with me and many > people I [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Considering that the process hasn't begun yet, perhaps you would need 30 of > those licences to be turned down to know what I am talking about. Actually, we've had MS invalidate our license keys, and they issued us new keys, which work fine. > | > It's a total non issue to MS apologists only. I know a little about > | > computers and it bothers me. Imagine when this trip hits the average [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Um, they will become concerned if they don't pass the Thief test, now won't > they? How do you know they won't pass? Do you have a crystal ball? So, it appears since you don't have a clue that you're here only to stir up some $hit? > | Since you obviously don't like the way that MS is taking THEIR product, > | suck it up and choose to go the non-MS route, or don't you like a totally > | free OS and apps? > > We are testing Linux right now, although I really didn't want to go through > that learning curve but I will if MS insists on this kind of crap. There is little learning curve from the user side, maintenance is another story, but, any competent tech can handle it. I'm using FC3 on this workstation and have not used my XP system today at all. Signaturespam999free@rrohio.com remove 999 in order to email me Greg R., thanks for drawing attention back to my original post. Mike Brannigan MSFT, can you respond to the original post? Once the initiative takes effect can we download updates to a safe machine and distribute executable files (off-line) to client computers? What if the client computers were certified by the Windows Genuine Advantage tool (whatever you call it) previously? > Greg R., thanks for drawing attention back to my original post. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the client computers were certified by the Windows Genuine Advantage > tool (whatever you call it) previously? You are only required to prove WGA for a machine that is accessing a site secured by it. The content is not WGA protected. SignatureRegards, Mike -- Mike Brannigan [Microsoft] This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these newsgroups > Greg R., thanks for drawing attention back to my original post. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the client computers were certified by the Windows Genuine Advantage > tool (whatever you call it) previously? Sorry, I not trying to be rude. I just trying to get the fact correct. >What number ?? You do not have to enter any numbers to download if you >system is legitimate. If not you need to go buy a full copy of Windows. For example if I go to this site from any browsers http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=e0175119-9a5b-44c3-b1de -9b2a9aa6cff6&displaylang=en and download an update the requires Windows Genuine Advantage. Will I have to enter the key each and every time to prove my system is legal? Especially if I clean out the cache of my browsers. Are you saying the only reason I am asked to validate my key is because they system think my machine is pirated? I bought it at wal-mart and I have the receipt. It is legal Just a side note another software (forgot the name) it said my system appears legal. Here is what I think is going to cause a problem with Windows Genuine Advantage. Manufactures who use volume license to pre-install xp systems.* The Windows Genuine Advantage software is detecting the volume license key so it thinks it not legal and ask you for proof. So some people who have preinstalled systems may need to change to the key on the back of the machine unless they want to enter a the product key each time. Then they will also need to activate. Greg R *This info was from reading these newsgroups plus I confirmed it with some test I did. "Greg R" <webworm12@yes.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ldtqv0hgu4m2lfmmvrnb9t7jntppjhgqvb@4ax.com... > Sorry, I not trying to be rude. I just trying to get the fact > correct. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > key on the back of the machine unless they want to enter a the product > key each time. Then they will also need to activate. Well, activation can still happen as many times as one likes, as long as there hasn't been any substantial hardware changes that may make a call necessary. But this WGA thing may have more to it than meets the eye (considering the next MS OS is probably no more than two years from going "GOLD"). Note that the FAQs (http://tinyurl.com/5cvun) regarding WGA tend to hint that every time one needs to update anything with MS software (i.e., the WMP10 example, though for now, that is allowed to be bypassed) or security patches, it checks the sum of the PC for XP (or any Windows activation) validation. Now, we (for the most part) all know that if more than a 120 day period goes by between XP activations, that it will install without MS representative help. I think (and it is a legitimate thought), that the WGA process will reset the activation timestamp every time a new update, or MS software, is installed during validation. This can further help eliminate (possible) multiple installs of the OS as the 120 day grace period will not be of any help to that, by forcing a phone call, which can be a hindrance to the unwilling. > Sorry, I not trying to be rude. I just trying to get the fact > correct. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Will I have to enter the key each and every time to prove my system is > legal? Especially if I clean out the cache of my browsers. If you do not install the active x control then you will be required to enter the key. > Are you saying the only reason I am asked to validate my key is > because they system think my machine is pirated? I bought it at > wal-mart and I have the receipt. It is legal No the system does not know if your system is pirate or not - we are simply confirming that you are a genuine user. > Just a side note another software (forgot the name) it said my system > appears legal. > > Here is what I think is going to cause a problem with Windows Genuine > Advantage. Manufactures who use volume license to pre-install xp > systems.* That will not be a problem as that is a valid and genuine install. The vast majority of PCs are actually OEM installed this way and have no problems with WGA > The Windows Genuine Advantage software is detecting the volume license > key so it thinks it not legal and ask you for proof. No the OEM key is valid and genuine so no problem. > So some people who have preinstalled systems may need to change to the > key on the back of the machine unless they want to enter a the product > key each time. Then they will also need to activate. No. > Greg R > *This info was from SignatureRegards, Mike -- Mike Brannigan [Microsoft] This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these newsgroups > Sorry, I not trying to be rude. I just trying to get the fact > correct. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > *This info was from reading these newsgroups plus I confirmed it with > some test I did. Thank you Mike for clearing that up. Greg R I have legal Windows software. I have not yet accepted the WGA agreement, because so far I don't know what will happen in the future. If I agree to WGA at the present time, Microsoft will link my present software to my present computer. Let's say that I buy a new computer tomorrow because what was my present computer has a hardware problem. I still have the Windows XP original software. It won't be used anymore in my old computer and I want to install it in my new computer. My fear is that Microsoft will think that the computer-software legal link has been broken and will deny service to my new computer with the old software. Please tell me if my concern is right or wrong. > > Windows Genuine Advantage > > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1754886,00.asp [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > carl >I have legal Windows software. I have not yet accepted the WGA agreement, > because so far I don't know what will happen in the future. If I agree to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > computer with the old software. Please tell me if my concern is right or > wrong. The issue is not whether your copy is legal, the issue is whether the XP is OEM or retail. A copy of XP can be moved from one computer to another if it is a retail copy (as long as it's first uninstalled from the computer it's on). If the copy on the first computer is OEM, by it's license it's tied to that first computer and cannot be moved to another one. This is not a WGA issue. SignatureRock [MS-MVP User/Shell] Thank you, Rock. I didn't know that rule. Probably I was so excited when I got my new computer that I missed that detail in the fine (or not so fine) print. OK, not that I like it, but that's not the issue. Then we are talking about OEM in my case. My worry is still the same. Even if keeping the same computer, parts of the hardware may be changed in the future; and the original+genuine+legal+wonderful Windows XP software will have to be reinstalled. I still think that Microsoft will be fooled as soon as some serial number doesn't match (let's say for example I changed my hard disk or the motherboard). Microsoft will think that I am installing illegally and will take every effort to make my life impossible (not that it's very easy as of now) even if I paid for this OEM version when buying my computer. If Microsoft were error-free I would sign the agreement immediately. But I know by many frozen blue screens and other unforgettable experiences that dear Microsoft sometimes makes mistakes. So, I still have the same fear before signing the agreement because I want to feel as free in the future as I do now. I don't see the interests of the consumer reflected in the agreement. This "what-if-I-reinstall" is still my concern. Can someone from Microsoft reassure me everything will be fine? > >I have legal Windows software. I have not yet accepted the WGA agreement, > > because so far I don't know what will happen in the future. If I agree to [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > that first computer and cannot be moved to another one. This is not a WGA > issue. You did not "buy the software", in the case of OEM you buy the right to use the software on a particular machine. When the machine goes away, so does the right to use the software. If you want to buy the right to use the software on one machine today and then move it to a different machine next month, then you may purchase it in the form of a Retail license. You pay for the rights. > Thank you, Rock. > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] >>that first computer and cannot be moved to another one. This is not a WGA >>issue. > Thank you, Rock. > [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] >> WGA >> issue. Signing what agreement, I'm not sure what you're talking about. You can reinstall an OEM copy on the same computer as many times as you want. Again this has nothing to do with WGA. It's all in the license agreement or EULA. Read it for the details. The issue is activation and what hardware you change. On many OEM systems the XP version is BIOS locked to the motherboard so it can only be installed on a motherboard from that OEM, and there is no activation, it is already activated. If it's not a BIOS locked version then it will need to be reactivated when the OS is reinstalled. Then the activation with go through on the internet or if needed you have to make a phone call. This has nothing to do with WGA. If you don't want to install the WGA update, don't. This is a peer to peer newsgroup, not official MS support. If you want to talk to someone at MS, you have to call them. SignatureRock [MS-MVP User/Shell] Thank you again, Rock. About: > Signing what agreement, I'm not sure what you're talking about. The WGA update comes with an agreement that one has to 'sign' (that is, click a button that says "I agree"). After reading the EULA I understood that, with the WGA update, Microsoft links some ID's of my hardware with the ID of my version of Windows XP. This link will be stablished as the way to recognize if a particular version of Windows XP is being installed in other computers, which is forbidden. Again I try to explain my concern: In my view, Microsoft's procedure is flawed because they didn't think that my computer can have future changes in parts of its hardware. By 2010 I will have a different motherboard or hard disk, with ID's that are different to the ID's of my previous hardware, as registered in Microsoft's files dating back to 2007. Once the WGA update is installed, any future activation of the same Windows XP could be hindered because of an obsolete hardware ID - software ID link. I imagine that if I change my hard disk and reinstall Windows XP, I will receive a warning from MS saying that I have an illegal copy of Windows XP. Why? Because according to their files, my version of Windows XP should match another hard disk. I want the freedom to change some parts of my hardware in the future; it still will be the same computer, but will Microsoft recognize it as such? About: > If you don't want to install the WGA update, don't. I also understood that if I don't install the WGA update, I won't get some important future updates. That's why this is for me a lose-lose situation and I am seeking help. About: > This is a peer to peer newsgroup, not official MS support. If you want to > talk to someone at MS, you have to call them. OK, thanks, but sometimes people that work for MS write something here too. There is Mike Brannigan in this same thread. He works for MS. However your comments help me too, Rock, and I appreciate them. Thank you also, Bob I. Your comment is very much like Rock's first one in what it says. I understand that I didn't 'buy' the software. But as a MS consumer with limited rights to use their software, I want to know my options before I install or not the WGA update. I have already said its agreement should be friendlier to the legal MS consumers who have paid some money to use their products. I think Microsoft can build a better mousetrap than this one. Take care and thanks again. > Thank you again, Rock. About: > [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > > Take care and thanks again. Mike Brannigan doesn't work for MS anymore and hasn't for some time. Besides, the occasional MS employee that posts here does so on their own time, not as officially representing MS. I don't know what else I can tell you. A copy of XP can be reinstalled as many times as you want on the same system. If activation is needed then do so, either through the internet or by a phone call. The only question is what constitutes a new computer. You can change any of of the hardware components no problem. The only question comes in is the motherboard. Some people maintain changing that is a new computer. In the first place if your copy of XP is BIOS locked then you can't change the motherboard to anything but a motherboard from the OEM. If the new motherboard is from the OEM and BIOS locked activation isn't necessary. If it's not BIOS locked and needs activation then the question is, does that new motherboard constitute a new computer. MS has not defined what constitutes a new computer. I have heard of some people who have had activation refused because of this, though I don't know of anyone personally. I do know of many that have changed motherboards no problem. And none of this has anything to do with WGA. It's an activation issue. SignatureRock [MS-MVP User/Shell] Thank you, guys. You have all been very helpful. > Thank you, guys. You have all been very helpful. You're welcome. SignatureRock [MS-MVP User/Shell] >I think Microsoft can build a better mousetrap than this >one. Probably could have if the "mouse trap" was actually designed to trap a mouse in the first place. However, and a question for you.... Since your basic run-of-the-mill Pirate can run rings around the infamous malware WGA and is unaffected by it, and that the only people having this thing continually updating and phoning home on their systems are Honest paid for customers of M$, then what do you think the real purpose of the infamous malware WGA is actually all about? Keep in mind that M$ has already been caught red handed in a bunch of lies about this thing from its demented conception. >>I think Microsoft can build a better mousetrap than this >>one. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > mind that M$ has already been caught red handed in a bunch of lies > about this thing from its demented conception. Interestingly enough, a better mousetrap does exist...but we don't really want to go there, now do we? Imagine what an inconvenience it would be if the licensing terms allow Microsoft and/or enforcement agencies to set up "traps" for catching scofflaws and pirates, much like a city's traffic enforcement detail. Of course, it means both product registration and activation along with proofs of ownership. OTOH, it might be worthwhile to let some of the inconveniences slip by and get on with our lives. If it gets too inconvenient, well Microsoft would certainly know it by the sudden migration from their product or a serious sales slump. And, BTW, there are many non-pirates who have the brains and knowledge to run rings around WGA and escape from its clutches. >>> I think Microsoft can build a better mousetrap than this one. >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > And, BTW, there are many non-pirates who have the brains and knowledge > to run rings around WGA and escape from its clutches. Things have already progressed much farther than what you suppose could happen. MS has already set itself up as the policeman, and has taken on the added responsibility of being the judge and the jury. "Inconvenient" is not the "correct" word to describe what has happened and continues to happen. Signaturenorm >And, BTW, there are many non-pirates who have the brains and knowledge >to run rings around WGA and escape from its clutches. I'm a non-pirate that got the tools to get around the |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message