Dear all,

Will be very busy in the next few days, so please allow me to highlight some
questions for why I'm against the above practices (not against the company
nor the product).

Instead of going through all explanations, I'd like to list some questions
for you to consider. Again, it doesn't matter for you to change your stand
or not, but just to bring some questions for considerations.

(1) XP license method: Do you see any major needs for changing the current
license methods for XP?

(2) WGA: Do you see anything terribly wrong for letting a user to grant and
determine when the system is being verified for a genuine product? Example,
when the OS is being installed and about to be used AND when a user is
visiting the site for updating critical AND non-critical updates, AND for
downloading anything from the site.

(3) Win-Win situation: Do you really believe that both practices have been
included the "win-win" considerations for both the company AND the consumer?

(4) Eliminate piracy: Do you really believe that piracy can be totally wiped
out and eliminated if both are being in place?

(5) Legal precedent: Can you live up with the consequences for if both
practices become a legal precedent and followed by other software makers?

Example, a DVD software maker limit you to change DVD burner once, and
constantly monitoring your system to see if you're using a genuine copy, and
the same thing for games, anti-virus programs, and so on.

(6) Risk of doing business: You honestly believe that a company operating in
a fair market economy can do business without any risks of losing any
potential revenues, and it can only make more than deserved but not without
any risk for less.

If you answer YES to all of the above, there is no more to say. If you have
any doubts about any of the above, you may wish to reconsider your stand.

That's all and good luck.

"xfile" <cou-cou@remove.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:eK5Jx6l9GHA.4740@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Dear all,
>
> Will be very busy in the next few days, so please allow me to highlight
> some questions for why I'm against the above practices (not against the
> company nor the product).
>
> Instead of going through all explanations, I'd like to list some questions
> for you to consider. Again, it doesn't matter for you to change your
> stand or not, but just to bring some questions for considerations.
>
> (1) XP license method: Do you see any major needs for changing the current
> license methods for XP?
>
> (2) WGA: Do you see anything terribly wrong for letting a user to grant
> and determine when the system is being verified for a genuine product?
> Example, when the OS is being installed and about to be used AND when a
> user is visiting the site for updating critical AND non-critical updates,
> AND for downloading anything from the site.
>
> (3) Win-Win situation: Do you really believe that both practices have been
> included the "win-win" considerations for both the company AND the
> consumer?
>
> (4) Eliminate piracy: Do you really believe that piracy can be totally
> wiped out and eliminated if both are being in place?
>
> (5) Legal precedent: Can you live up with the consequences for if both
> practices become a legal precedent and followed by other software makers?
>
> Example, a DVD software maker limit you to change DVD burner once, and
> constantly monitoring your system to see if you're using a genuine copy,
> and the same thing for games, anti-virus programs, and so on.
>
> (6) Risk of doing business: You honestly believe that a company operating
> in a fair market economy can do business without any risks of losing any
> potential revenues, and it can only make more than deserved but not
> without any risk for less.
>
> If you answer YES to all of the above, there is no more to say. If you
> have any doubts about any of the above, you may wish to reconsider your
> stand.


I don't mind WGA or any other anti-piracy method, providing it works 100%.
I don't want to install an operating system to find that activation fails
and I am branded a software thief.

--
Beck
www.spritesandbites.net

I'm against abuse of my privacy and I am against abuse of my civil
liberties.

Beck wrote:
>> "xfile" <cou-cou@remove.nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:eK5Jx6l9GHA.4740@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> Will be very busy in the next few days, so please allow me to
>>> highlight some questions for why I'm against the above practices
>>> (not against the company nor the product).
>>>
>>> Instead of going through all explanations, I'd like to list some
>>> questions for you to consider. Again, it doesn't matter for you to
>>> change your stand or not, but just to bring some questions for
>>> considerations.
>>>
>>> (1) XP license method: Do you see any major needs for changing the
>>> current license methods for XP?
>>>
>>> (2) WGA: Do you see anything terribly wrong for letting a user to
>>> grant and determine when the system is being verified for a genuine
>>> product? Example, when the OS is being installed and about to be
>>> used AND when a user is visiting the site for updating critical AND
>>> non-critical updates, AND for downloading anything from the site.
>>>
>>> (3) Win-Win situation: Do you really believe that both practices
>>> have been included the "win-win" considerations for both the
>>> company AND the consumer?
>>>
>>> (4) Eliminate piracy: Do you really believe that piracy can be
>>> totally wiped out and eliminated if both are being in place?
>>>
>>> (5) Legal precedent: Can you live up with the consequences for if
>>> both practices become a legal precedent and followed by other
>>> software makers?
>>>
>>> Example, a DVD software maker limit you to change DVD burner once,
>>> and constantly monitoring your system to see if you're using a
>>> genuine copy, and the same thing for games, anti-virus programs,
>>> and so on.
>>>
>>> (6) Risk of doing business: You honestly believe that a company
>>> operating in a fair market economy can do business without any
>>> risks of losing any potential revenues, and it can only make more
>>> than deserved but not without any risk for less.
>>>
>>> If you answer YES to all of the above, there is no more to say. If
>>> you have any doubts about any of the above, you may wish to
>>> reconsider your stand.
>>
>>
>> I don't mind WGA or any other anti-piracy method, providing it works
>> 100%. I don't want to install an operating system to find that
>> activation fails and I am branded a software thief.
>>
>> --
>> Beck
>> www.spritesandbites.net

> I'm against abuse of my privacy and I am against abuse of my civil
> liberties.

Then install "the other" OS.

Why should I? The abuse of privacy and abuse of civil liberties is a crime
and should be dealt with when it occurs.

Gernot Frisch wrote:
>>> I'm against abuse of my privacy and I am against abuse of my civil
>>> liberties.
>>
>> Then install "the other" OS.

Beck wrote:
>
> "xfile" <cou-cou@remove.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:eK5Jx6l9GHA.4740@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Will be very busy in the next few days, so please allow me to
>> highlight some questions for why I'm against the above practices (not
>> against the company nor the product).
>>
>> Instead of going through all explanations, I'd like to list some
>> questions for you to consider. Again, it doesn't matter for you to
>> change your stand or not, but just to bring some questions for
>> considerations.
>>
>> (1) XP license method: Do you see any major needs for changing the
>> current license methods for XP?
>>
>> (2) WGA: Do you see anything terribly wrong for letting a user to
>> grant and determine when the system is being verified for a genuine
>> product? Example, when the OS is being installed and about to be used
>> AND when a user is visiting the site for updating critical AND
>> non-critical updates, AND for downloading anything from the site.
>>
>> (3) Win-Win situation: Do you really believe that both practices have
>> been included the "win-win" considerations for both the company AND
>> the consumer?
>>
>> (4) Eliminate piracy: Do you really believe that piracy can be totally
>> wiped out and eliminated if both are being in place?
>>
>> (5) Legal precedent: Can you live up with the consequences for if both
>> practices become a legal precedent and followed by other software makers?
>>
>> Example, a DVD software maker limit you to change DVD burner once, and
>> constantly monitoring your system to see if you're using a genuine
>> copy, and the same thing for games, anti-virus programs, and so on.
>>
>> (6) Risk of doing business: You honestly believe that a company
>> operating in a fair market economy can do business without any risks
>> of losing any potential revenues, and it can only make more than
>> deserved but not without any risk for less.
>>
>> If you answer YES to all of the above, there is no more to say. If
>> you have any doubts about any of the above, you may wish to reconsider
>> your stand.
>
>
> I don't mind WGA or any other anti-piracy method, providing it works
> 100%. I don't want to install an operating system to find that
> activation fails and I am branded a software thief.
>

If someone is stealing from you, you don't use your paying customers to
help you catch the thief. You call the proper legal authorities. WPA and
WGA and ISS are all software. Ergo, they aren't perfect and false
positive will abound. I can't believe that people accept being made to
act as a cop for MS and for free!

Alias

So is piracy.....
"SESSION_EVENT" <session@event.net.net.net> wrote in message
news:%23$L7sbr9GHA.2316@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Why should I? The abuse of privacy and abuse of civil liberties is a crime
> and should be dealt with when it occurs.
>
> Gernot Frisch wrote:
>>>> I'm against abuse of my privacy and I am against abuse of my civil
>>>> liberties.
>>>
>>> Then install "the other" OS.
>
>

ML wrote:
>> So is piracy.....
>> "SESSION_EVENT" <session@event.net.net.net> wrote in message
>> news:%23$L7sbr9GHA.2316@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> Why should I? The abuse of privacy and abuse of civil liberties is
>>> a crime and should be dealt with when it occurs.
>>>
>>> Gernot Frisch wrote:
>>>>>> I'm against abuse of my privacy and I am against abuse of my
>>>>>> civil liberties.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then install "the other" OS.

Right, but I am not the law nor the carrying out of it, neither is
Microsoft. It's for the courts to issue warrants to the police to invade a
privacy, do searches, seize documents and arrest pirates. Then it is for the
courts to decide what action to take within the limits of the laws of the
land. It's a regulated process which precludes tyranny. Microsoft wants to
usurp those powers of state. It also wants to remain completely
unaccountable. It just doesn't jive. Almost sounds like the monopolist wants
to turn tyrant. Not good. They should be more circumscript in their
behaviour in my opinion.

Sure piracy is "bad". How "bad" it is for Microsoft is debatable because it
could well be argued that piracy is one of the main factors that ensured
success for Microsoft. Piracy helped put Windows everywhere giving it
dominance. But now that Windows is everywhere and piracy is of no more use
to Microsoft, piracy is suddenly "really bad" and we are supposed to agree
that it is A-OK to abuse the privacy and civil liberties of the customer in
order to combat it. Doesn't jive with me and is not good.

No, I am not advocating stealing nor piracy. But I don't think Microsoft has
the right to be abusive in combatting it. It's a matter of reasonable
limits. The ends do not necessarily justify the means.

I've never really thought about this debate until now, but here are the
things that strike me at first.

1) Privacy

I don't see how WGA/WPA affects privacy. Your IP address is a public thing
by definition. Microsoft has it every time you access any of their websites.
And Microsoft only gets a hardware "fingerprint" of your computer - they can
uniquely identify only your COMPUTER based on this fingerprint, not YOU.
Because this fingerprint, your license key, etc. does not tie into your
personal identity at all.

2) Effects of enforcement

Microsoft wants to prevent you from transferring your license from one
computer to the next more than once. Microsoft also wants to make sure you
have a valid copy of windows - this is done by downloading a tool that
verifies you are not running a hacked version.

Since I have already ruled out privacy concerns, the only negative aspect of
this is:

- Being falsely identified as an invalid copy

- Not being able to transfer to a new computer more than once

The first one is the only real issue in my opinion. All software has bugs,
including whatever tool they will use to detect invalid copies of windows. I
would hate to see the reaction if this software invalidated a huge chunk of
legal copies of Windows. Microsoft could be opening up a can of worms in
this regard.

As for the transferability of Windows, I can see how having an automatic
software means to enforfce this will help prevent piracy. However, this
provision does seem to affect a small percentage of the more technical savvy
of the computer users, not just pirates. I can see how MS can justify this,
although I do not agree with it personally.

Using technical means to enforce licensing is a good idea; however,
Microsoft must be careful to ensure that their software enforces the terms
of the agreement that benefit both microsoft and the end user. If the
enforcement software were to erroneously limit the end user's rights under
the EULA, wouldn't MS be in breach of their own agreement?

--
- JB

Windows Vista Support Faq
http://www.jimmah.com/vista/

Hi,

I should have mentioned it is "WGA N" but not WGA is the problem and what
WGA does are examples on (2) (which I give it more options for non-critical
updates as well as for "downloading anything" both are not existing for
now).

What WGA N does is highly controversial - it "automatically" and
"periodically" sends system information back to its mother.

The company is reluctant to disclose the intervals for sending information
(according to several reports) and as far as for what type of information it
will collect, you can only guess.

THE ISSUE - Without a user's knowledge and consensus, this software will
periodically collect and send information to its company.

Again, I'd like to re-emphasize two points:

(1) Many of us are not against piracy verification. So please do read our
messages closely and please do distinguish the WGA and so-called WGA N
practice.

We are not here to frame the company as an evil and please do not frame us
as using pirated products. It's about the two specific "practices".

(2) Please do consider the consequences for both Vista license and WGA N
practice to become an industry standard.

Yes, it will because this company is the industry leader, and everything it
does, will soon be followed by other software makers. Once those practices
become a legal case and followed by other makers, go figure what kind of
life we will be living in.

One thing is good though, we don't need a firewall anymore because all kinds
of application are constantly collecting our system information and legally
sending to its parent company for "verification" purposes.

And it should also help the industry's growth, since whenever a person
changes a major component, one of the software and/or OS must be
re-purchased.

Finally, I would really appreciate people constantly saying "only a small
percentage will be affected" can at least do two things:

(1) Show some creditable sources of statistics for your statement, and
(2) Consider if you are unfortunately become one of them, will you say the
same?



"xfile" <cou-cou@remove.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:eK5Jx6l9GHA.4740@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Dear all,
>
> Will be very busy in the next few days, so please allow me to highlight
> some questions for why I'm against the above practices (not against the
> company nor the product).
>
> Instead of going through all explanations, I'd like to list some questions
> for you to consider. Again, it doesn't matter for you to change your
> stand or not, but just to bring some questions for considerations.
>
> (1) XP license method: Do you see any major needs for changing the current
> license methods for XP?
>
> (2) WGA: Do you see anything terribly wrong for letting a user to grant
> and determine when the system is being verified for a genuine product?
> Example, when the OS is being installed and about to be used AND when a
> user is visiting the site for updating critical AND non-critical updates,
> AND for downloading anything from the site.
>
> (3) Win-Win situation: Do you really believe that both practices have been
> included the "win-win" considerations for both the company AND the
> consumer?
>
> (4) Eliminate piracy: Do you really believe that piracy can be totally
> wiped out and eliminated if both are being in place?
>
> (5) Legal precedent: Can you live up with the consequences for if both
> practices become a legal precedent and followed by other software makers?
>
> Example, a DVD software maker limit you to change DVD burner once, and
> constantly monitoring your system to see if you're using a genuine copy,
> and the same thing for games, anti-virus programs, and so on.
>
> (6) Risk of doing business: You honestly believe that a company operating
> in a fair market economy can do business without any risks of losing any
> potential revenues, and it can only make more than deserved but not
> without any risk for less.
>
> If you answer YES to all of the above, there is no more to say. If you
> have any doubts about any of the above, you may wish to reconsider your
> stand.
>
> That's all and good luck.
>

Ahh Jimmy,
Not at all against WGA; it's methodology;again. It's WGA N and SPP.
By their methodology here;MSFT is making fundamental assumptions;
assumptions and actions;based on the premise of guilt.
Guilt Jimmy
And; as I have asked; many times; when did the onus of responsibility;to
have to prove one's innocence;fall to the consumer? Constantly prove;btw.
People argue this and that;but the fact stands; with SPP; and WGA N;
your pc is initiating an outbound connection; by itself.
Why does MSFT have to "periodically"(periodically;as in; at every boot
up-btw) check; to see if I in fact;have in my possession; a valid copy of
said o.s.?
A premise of guilt Jimmy; that's why.
And furthermore;what business is it of MSFT;what hardware I run it on?
None. Period. I don't give a flying ^^$W what MSFT; or people say; I pay
good money to lease an operating system. If I choose to change my
hardware;that's my right;and the operating system better work on it. Period.
Or they lose my business-forever.

Which; as a side note;this weekend, I had to help a friend recover from
a fatal XP error; which I was none to happy about;but in the course of this
reinstall;with his "genuine" copy; I got to the point of running updates.
XP Home SP2-and going through MSFT update;there were 66 "high priority"
updates.(66- ya think it's time for SP3??)
I did not arbitrarily let it auto-update;as MSFT wants everyone to
do;but I carefully reviewed every single update before even downloading; and
guess what? No KB905474-no Windows Genuine Advantage Notifications. So I
said; Hmmm; and installed my copy of XP Pro in VPC2007; in this lappy; and
again;at updates; no WGA N. Others have noticed this also. I can only
comment on this part; now;because; as you know; I've been running
Vista;exclusively. Seems that WGA N isn't on MSFT's "high priority" updates
any longer.
As to erroneously limiting; Chad can fill you in on that part. lol

Jeff :-)

"Jimmy Brush" <Jimmy Brush@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7F41F4C6-D615-4D85-93C5-756543E5D770@microsoft.com...
> I've never really thought about this debate until now, but here are the
> things that strike me at first.
>
> 1) Privacy
>
> I don't see how WGA/WPA affects privacy. Your IP address is a public thing
> by definition. Microsoft has it every time you access any of their
> websites. And Microsoft only gets a hardware "fingerprint" of your
> computer - they can uniquely identify only your COMPUTER based on this
> fingerprint, not YOU. Because this fingerprint, your license key, etc.
> does not tie into your personal identity at all.
>
> 2) Effects of enforcement
>
> Microsoft wants to prevent you from transferring your license from one
> computer to the next more than once. Microsoft also wants to make sure you
> have a valid copy of windows - this is done by downloading a tool that
> verifies you are not running a hacked version.
>
> Since I have already ruled out privacy concerns, the only negative aspect
> of this is:
>
> - Being falsely identified as an invalid copy
>
> - Not being able to transfer to a new computer more than once
>
> The first one is the only real issue in my opinion. All software has bugs,
> including whatever tool they will use to detect invalid copies of windows.
> I would hate to see the reaction if this software invalidated a huge chunk
> of legal copies of Windows. Microsoft could be opening up a can of worms
> in this regard.
>
> As for the transferability of Windows, I can see how having an automatic
> software means to enforfce this will help prevent piracy. However, this
> provision does seem to affect a small percentage of the more technical
> savvy of the computer users, not just pirates. I can see how MS can
> justify this, although I do not agree with it personally.
>
> Using technical means to enforce licensing is a good idea; however,
> Microsoft must be careful to ensure that their software enforces the terms
> of the agreement that benefit both microsoft and the end user. If the
> enforcement software were to erroneously limit the end user's rights under
> the EULA, wouldn't MS be in breach of their own agreement?
>
> --
> - JB
>
> Windows Vista Support Faq
> http://www.jimmah.com/vista/

I'm against retardation
"Gernot Frisch" <Me@Privacy.net> wrote in message
news:4q44dpFkt92bU1@individual.net...
>
>> I'm against abuse of my privacy and I am against abuse of my civil
>> liberties.
>
> Then install "the other" OS.
>

<snip>
> Not at all against WGA; it's methodology;again. It's WGA N and SPP.
> By their methodology here;MSFT is making fundamental assumptions;
> assumptions and actions;based on the premise of guilt.

It has always been based on guilt. You enter a product key to PROVE that you
have a license to windows. You validate to PROVE that you have a valid
license key. You "genuine advantage" to prove that you have a valid
validation of a valid license key.

And if these things fail, Windows will tell you about it. And ask you to
gain a legal key. And disable functionality.

All I see is MS ramping up enforcement.

<snip>
> And; as I have asked; many times; when did the onus of responsibility;to
> have to prove one's innocence;fall to the consumer? Constantly prove;btw.

Since the invention of the product key. lol

> People argue this and that;but the fact stands; with SPP; and WGA N;
> your pc is initiating an outbound connection; by itself.

True. Personally, I think this is a bit sneaky, and it should at least tell
you what's going on, what info is being sent, and give you a choice to stop
it - even if choosing to stop it will limit the functionality of your
Windows system, you would still have a choice.

> Why does MSFT have to "periodically"(periodically;as in; at every boot
> up-btw) check; to see if I in fact;have in my possession; a valid copy of
> said o.s.?

Because they are always finding new cracked keys / hacking methods. If they
didn't do this, they couldn't catch those that have activated a hacked copy.
In this way, there is no longer a "lag time" where users of the newest
exploits/hacks get activated and are good from then on.

<snip>
> And furthermore;what business is it of MSFT;what hardware I run it on?

Personally, I don't think it is any of their business. I don't think there
should be limitations on how many times you can transfer your Windows
license around. I think that provision is just there to keep unscrupulous
people from continuously copying Windows from one computer to the next and
calling up product support saying they are transferring the license, when
they are not.

I think Microsoft needs a technical solution to this problem, that would
allow them to catch the theives without hurting honest people's ability to
transfer their license around.

<snip>
> As to erroneously limiting; Chad can fill you in on that part. lol

No doubt. lol


--
- JB

Windows Vista Support Faq
http://www.jimmah.com/vista/

Jimmy,
Validation; at my initiation; is one thing; checking in at every bootup
is quite another;(SPP_WGA N) and no; fundamentally; this is a shift.
WGA in itself;did not do this; and I am not opposed at all to WGA.
This is analogous to searching one's house;by the police;whenever you wake
up.(bad analogy maybe;but you get my point)
Product keys are not constantly validating themselves;you buy a
product;produce a valid key;story over. Not checking in everytime you use
the software.
Again a fundamental shift; in the way they do business; and on a side
note;it seems that WGA N is no longer a update.
At least I don't see it.
Twice in the past 5 days; I,ve had the financial fortune;to use my
business;to help out people;who just can't stay away from "hidden" files-lol
Reinstalled XP for a friend(no payment required-however;they did; and a
customer;payment required!! :-)! )
In the course of getting the patches(66 in total;and as I stated b4-66;hmm
SP3?-lol)
No WGA N on the servers.
Wonder where it went?
Again, Chad probably has the best info there. LOL

Jeff

"Jimmy Brush" <JimmyBrush@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2417559D-4EA9-4B55-9924-528270099984@microsoft.com...
> <snip>
>> Not at all against WGA; it's methodology;again. It's WGA N and SPP.
>> By their methodology here;MSFT is making fundamental assumptions;
>> assumptions and actions;based on the premise of guilt.
>
> It has always been based on guilt. You enter a product key to PROVE that
> you have a license to windows. You validate to PROVE that you have a valid
> license key. You "genuine advantage" to prove that you have a valid
> validation of a valid license key.
>
> And if these things fail, Windows will tell you about it. And ask you to
> gain a legal key. And disable functionality.
>
> All I see is MS ramping up enforcement.
>
> <snip>
>> And; as I have asked; many times; when did the onus of responsibility;to
>> have to prove one's innocence;fall to the consumer? Constantly prove;btw.
>
> Since the invention of the product key. lol
>
>> People argue this and that;but the fact stands; with SPP; and WGA N;
>> your pc is initiating an outbound connection; by itself.
>
> True. Personally, I think this is a bit sneaky, and it should at least
> tell you what's going on, what info is being sent, and give you a choice
> to stop it - even if choosing to stop it will limit the functionality of
> your Windows system, you would still have a choice.
>
>> Why does MSFT have to "periodically"(periodically;as in; at every boot
>> up-btw) check; to see if I in fact;have in my possession; a valid copy of
>> said o.s.?
>
> Because they are always finding new cracked keys / hacking methods. If
> they didn't do this, they couldn't catch those that have activated a
> hacked copy. In this way, there is no longer a "lag time" where users of
> the newest exploits/hacks get activated and are good from then on.
>
> <snip>
>> And furthermore;what business is it of MSFT;what hardware I run it on?
>
> Personally, I don't think it is any of their business. I don't think there
> should be limitations on how many times you can transfer your Windows
> license around. I think that provision is just there to keep unscrupulous
> people from continuously copying Windows from one computer to the next and
> calling up product support saying they are transferring the license, when
> they are not.
>
> I think Microsoft needs a technical solution to this problem, that would
> allow them to catch the theives without hurting honest people's ability to
> transfer their license around.
>
> <snip>
>> As to erroneously limiting; Chad can fill you in on that part. lol
>
> No doubt. lol
>
>
> --
> - JB
>
> Windows Vista Support Faq
> http://www.jimmah.com/vista/

Yeah, why should an installation have to continually validate itself? How
can a valid installation somehow become un-valid? It doesn't make any sense.

I go to the superstore, buy a retail copy, install with key and activate -
it's valid .. so how does it ever become un-valid?

Jeff wrote:
>> Jimmy,
>> Validation; at my initiation; is one thing; checking in at every
>> bootup is quite another;(SPP_WGA N) and no; fundamentally; this is a
>> shift.
>> WGA in itself;did not do this; and I am not opposed at all to WGA.
>> This is analogous to searching one's house;by the police;whenever
>> you wake up.(bad analogy maybe;but you get my point)
>> Product keys are not constantly validating themselves;you buy a
>> product;produce a valid key;story over. Not checking in everytime
>> you use the software.
>> Again a fundamental shift; in the way they do business; and on a side
>> note;it seems that WGA N is no longer a update.
>> At least I don't see it.
>> Twice in the past 5 days; I,ve had the financial fortune;to use my
>> business;to help out people;who just can't stay away from "hidden"
>> files-lol Reinstalled XP for a friend(no payment
>> required-however;they did; and a customer;payment required!! :-)! )
>> In the course of getting the patches(66 in total;and as I stated
>> b4-66;hmm SP3?-lol)
>> No WGA N on the servers.
>> Wonder where it went?
>> Again, Chad probably has the best info there. LOL
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> "Jimmy Brush" <JimmyBrush@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:2417559D-4EA9-4B55-9924-528270099984@microsoft.com...
>>> <snip>
>>>> Not at all against WGA; it's methodology;again. It's WGA N and
>>>> SPP. By their methodology here;MSFT is making fundamental
>>>> assumptions; assumptions and actions;based on the premise of guilt.
>>>
>>> It has always been based on guilt. You enter a product key to PROVE
>>> that you have a license to windows. You validate to PROVE that you
>>> have a valid license key. You "genuine advantage" to prove that you
>>> have a valid validation of a valid license key.
>>>
>>> And if these things fail, Windows will tell you about it. And ask
>>> you to gain a legal key. And disable functionality.
>>>
>>> All I see is MS ramping up enforcement.
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>> And; as I have asked; many times; when did the onus of
>>>> responsibility;to have to prove one's innocence;fall to the
>>>> consumer? Constantly prove;btw.
>>>
>>> Since the invention of the product key. lol
>>>
>>>> People argue this and that;but the fact stands; with SPP; and
>>>> WGA N; your pc is initiating an outbound connection; by itself.
>>>
>>> True. Personally, I think this is a bit sneaky, and it should at
>>> least tell you what's going on, what info is being sent, and give
>>> you a choice to stop it - even if choosing to stop it will limit
>>> the functionality of your Windows system, you would still have a
>>> choice.
>>>
>>>> Why does MSFT have to "periodically"(periodically;as in; at every
>>>> boot up-btw) check; to see if I in fact;have in my possession; a
>>>> valid copy of said o.s.?
>>>
>>> Because they are always finding new cracked keys / hacking methods.
>>> If they didn't do this, they couldn't catch those that have
>>> activated a hacked copy. In this way, there is no longer a "lag
>>> time" where users of the newest exploits/hacks get activated and
>>> are good from then on.
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>> And furthermore;what business is it of MSFT;what hardware I run it
>>>> on?
>>>
>>> Personally, I don't think it is any of their business. I don't
>>> think there should be limitations on how many times you can
>>> transfer your Windows license around. I think that provision is
>>> just there to keep unscrupulous people from continuously copying
>>> Windows from one computer to the next and calling up product
>>> support saying they are transferring the license, when they are not.
>>>
>>> I think Microsoft needs a technical solution to this problem, that
>>> would allow them to catch the theives without hurting honest
>>> people's ability to transfer their license around.
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>> As to erroneously limiting; Chad can fill you in on that part.
>>>> lol
>>>
>>> No doubt. lol
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> - JB
>>>
>>> Windows Vista Support Faq
>>> http://www.jimmah.com/vista/