Microsoft's Revamped WGA Puts Burden On Users

[kak]

I don't understand the huge complaint about this. If you're legit, you don't have a problem. So what if it needs to authorize when you update? Its not like it takes a huge amount of time. Also, you never were able to install XP on any machine you wished, so why complain now that WGA makes it easier for Microsoft to check up on keys? Besides, who changes key hardware so often that you would need to do it so often that it would become a hassle (what is the use in that anyways).

[Stonkwell Bogtrotter]

Obviously not :rolleyes:

During the last financial year Microsoft's operating system and office software divisions made an operating profit of $18.5bn (?9.5bn, 14.1bn euro) on a turnover of just under $25bn.

Looks like piracy is really "hurting" M$:rolleyes::

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6191812.stm

[Ledgem]

I'm surprised by a lot of the replies here.

First off, piracy was arguably a large part of the reason for the success of Windows. An operating system with a large user base is more likely to have developer support than an operating system without the user base. We won't know for sure just how much piracy helped and is helping Windows until Microsoft is able to shut it down.

Second, many of you here seem to believe that WGA is flawless. Even 5% of false positives on legitimate customers is too much - heck, even 1% is an outrage. It's even more of an outrage because WGA is totally ineffective against REAL pirates, who will know to evade it or get around it. I believe Microsoft stated that measures such as these are against companies who knowingly sell pirated copies of Windows, rather than individuals who are pirating Windows. I'd imagine it may be somewhat effective in that case. However, don't go saying that WGA is something against individual pirates. If you think about it, you'll realize that it's not an effective strategy.

I just can't believe that many of you are fine with being treated this way. And you're even claiming that you're paying customers! I'm all for Microsoft getting what they justly deserve, but this WGA business should not happen. I do not believe that business practices such as these should be condoned. I don't believe any software can be 100% hack-proof, but there must be a better solution to cutting piracy.

[HistoricalNeowin]

A better solution to cutting priacy then stopping pirates from using it? Sounds fine to me.

[Fourjays Veteran]

I pretty much agree with Ledgem. The only people WGA is actually causing a problem to, are those getting false positives, those who've been sold a pirated copy (either pre-installed or as a disc) and amateur pirates (probably a very low number). The "pro" pirates will work around it. I'm all for MS protecting their software, but put simply; it isn't possible. There is always a work around.

[Aero Ultimate]

@Ledgem

Yes, you're absolutely right there. Even 5% false positives are way too much, and recently I read in an article on ZDnet that it has a whopping 40% of false positives, which included the author of the article who had been using his *fully legal* version of Windows for quite some time now and then, out of the blue, got a message that his Windows is supposedly an illegal copy, which seriously disturbed his day-to-day work.

Even if you've got a legal copy, it often can be a big pain in the a$$, so it's best to not install it on XP to begin with.

[PL_ Veteran]

You don't know that as noone has tried it. However, contract law in UK states quite categorically that if any part of a contract is not agreed to and the contract cannot be changed to not include the disputed part, then the entire contract is null and void. It is also quite specific about what constitues "acceptance" (as in signature), and clicking a button (which might well have happened automatically) does not constitute a signature. No signature, no binding contract.

It is alleged that EULAs are not valid contracts because there is unfair advantage to one party as well as the click-through "acceptance" that has no proof of who actually did it. So far this would be a successful claim in a UK court. YMMV.

Great point there, you too, Ledgem!

Oh, and can I just say...

AutoPatcher FTW :D

[4CxbqFxVnstmA Veteran]

this is why only a fool would vote for bill gates as president. if hell do this to his customers think how hell abuse the average citizens privacy and freedom :|

[macstorm]

I'm surprised by a lot of the replies here.

First off, piracy was arguably a large part of the reason for the success of Windows. An operating system with a large user base is more likely to have developer support than an operating system without the user base. We won't know for sure just how much piracy helped and is helping Windows until Microsoft is able to shut it down.

Second, many of you here seem to believe that WGA is flawless. Even 5% of false positives on legitimate customers is too much - heck, even 1% is an outrage. It's even more of an outrage because WGA is totally ineffective against REAL pirates, who will know to evade it or get around it. I believe Microsoft stated that measures such as these are against companies who knowingly sell pirated copies of Windows, rather than individuals who are pirating Windows. I'd imagine it may be somewhat effective in that case. However, don't go saying that WGA is something against individual pirates. If you think about it, you'll realize that it's not an effective strategy.

I just can't believe that many of you are fine with being treated this way. And you're even claiming that you're paying customers! I'm all for Microsoft getting what they justly deserve, but this WGA business should not happen. I do not believe that business practices such as these should be condoned. I don't believe any software can be 100% hack-proof, but there must be a better solution to cutting piracy.

Amen

[ZonoBurk]

The new update is out, I installed it and I've had no issues with it.

It's on Microsoft's website for download.

Link? I can't find it. I would like to get mine taken care of. :)

[Elliot B.]

I used to have issues with wga and complain about how its annoying and intrusive. but then i bought windows and those problems went away lol

Ditto. Microsoft won and I don't mind, having genuine software is much better when you can acquire the dollar for it.

[Crazysah]

I never have problems with WGA and I it is only a right thing for a company to do.

[JiveMasterT]

this is why only a fool would vote for bill gates as president. if hell do this to his customers think how hell abuse the average citizens privacy and freedom :|

How does that have to do with anything in the topic? Last I checked, Gates isn't even at Microsoft anymore. He's actually out doing loads of charity work with all of his money.

For what it's worth, I have 6 legit copies of XP and 1 Win 2k3 Enterprise Server liscenses running in my house right now. 1 of those copies regularly gets flagged as being invalid for whatever reason. It's my dev machine so it gets blown up all the time but I don't really care. Still though, 1/7 machines is still too high a ratio for me.

Then again I have friends who have tons of pirated copies of XP running 24/7 and none of them have any issues with WGA or any of that nonsense. Go figure. :rolleyes:

[+Neyht Subscriber²]

Reinstalled XP Home on a different computer. The disk hadn't been used for a while since I have two copies of XP Pro (one OEM, one retail). Knowing how activation works, I was expecting it to fail....but it didn't.

Twice during a reformat of my computer activation failed ( XP OEM). One of the possible reasons it gave was that I had passed the allowed number of activations which was plausible since I test Nlite and had upgraded more than a couple components ( I can count 5). Had to call to activate which was annoying.

Had a copy of Server 2003 lying around from an old MSDN subscription. I decided to see how it fared as a desktop OS for a while. Found out it wasn't as stable as XP when it came to gaming--even with the latest drivers. I'm getting off topic though.

Just recently reinstalled my XP Pro OEM and it activated without problems....hmm.

So to recap:

XP Home Upgrade - No problems with activation.

XP Pro RTM - No problems with activation.

XP Pro OEM - 2 call ins. Problem seems to be fixed?

Server 2003 - No problems with activation.

Vista RC1, RC2 - No problems with activation.

Ubuntu 6.10 - No problems with activation.

Edited December 2, 2006 by Ned

[Stonkwell Bogtrotter]

This kind of report won't help them in thier "fight" against piracy. What a fcking rip off.

"Confidential Microsoft figures reveal the estimated retail price of Office 2007 Ultimate edition in the UK will be a staggering ?600 -68 per cent more expensive> than Microsoft's suggested US retail price, based on current exchange rates.

The pricing details, which were meant for internal use within Microsoft UK, reveal similar price hikes are expected for other editions. Professional is priced at ?449.9972 per cent moreb> than the US), Small Business at ?399.969 per cent increase/b>) and Standard at ?349.67 per cent increase)."

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/98967/brits-to...ffice-2007.html

Is it any wonder why people used pirate copies when M$ are ripping people off. All the pirates are doing is ripping them off? Those prices are obscene.

[Bobster]

This kind of report won't help them in thier "fight" against piracy. What a fcking rip off.

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/98967/brits-to...ffice-2007.html

Is it any wonder why people used pirate copies when M$ are ripping people off. All the pirates are doing is ripping them off? Those prices are obscene.

I agree those prices are ridiculus, until M$ start offering there products are decent prices (?100 for the ultimate version is more than fair for what it is IMO) then no wonder there's so much piracy and I don't blame them.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Is it any wonder why people used pirate copies when M$ are ripping people off. All the pirates are doing is ripping them off? Those prices are obscene.

Exactly. Windows Vista Ultimate costs ?370, whilst Home Premium is ?230... those prices are just too steep, especially considering what it costs in the US ($400 for Ultimate, which converts to about ?202 - add VAT and it's still only ?238!). It is absolutely pathetic. I think the original US price is too high anyway, so obviously I'm appalled by the UK price.

Why don't they allow people to order it online? Set the price in dollars and apply local taxes, then allow people to download an ISO image (include a little program with a simple interface to allow novice users to burn it to disc). When buying games on Steam that is how it works - Valve get the same amount of money for every copy, yet because of the exchange rate it works out cheaper here... I'm happy, they're happy and everybody wins (afterall the price should reflect the value of the product, not the amount they can extort from you). I don't like being fleeced and that is EXACTLY what Microsoft are doing. I want so much to buy Vista retail but I can't justify the cost - I'll have a look at the OEM prices but the restrictions on that are even worse than the strict terms on retail. They are just encouraging piracy... and NO I don't pirate Windows but I CAN see why others do / will do.

[MazX_Napalm]

There should be a system of validating Windows at install - I agree.

There should be a system of continuously validating Windows after install - I disagree.

Every one in the world who uses Windows has access to an internet connection - False. Not everyone has an internet connection and not every internet connection is reliable. This is a common mistake made by city dwelling 1st world computer literate users. There are many places in the world where internet connections do not exist, are slow and unreliable, are very expensive

Everyone has 24/7 internet connection or has access to the internet on demand. - False.

I totally agree that any software could have an option to validate at or after install. This could be over the net or telephone or some method. But that should be it. Why continuously check?

[theyarecomingforyou]

There should be a system of validating Windows at install - I agree.

There should be a system of continuously validating Windows after install - I disagree.

I don't see any problem with continuously validating Windows after install but it does need to be as unobtrusive as possible and have little-to-no chance of false-positives. However, I think this WGA is pathetic and far too in-your-face - being required to validate before downloading from the Microsoft site is an insult to paying customers... they should have done that behind the scenes, instead of this misguided attempt to make people that payed to Windows to feel they are getting something more than the pirates. They basically treat everybody as pirates until they prove otherwise and I think that is disgusting.

[MazX_Napalm]

I don't see any problem with continuously validating Windows after install...

What if that pc is not connected to the internet in any way? Or if that pc is never intended to connect?

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

Exactly. Windows Vista Ultimate costs ?370, whilst Home Premium is ?230... those prices are just too steep, especially considering what it costs in the US ($400 for Ultimate, which converts to about ?202 - add VAT and it's still only ?238!). It is absolutely pathetic. I think the original US price is too high anyway, so obviously I'm appalled by the UK price.

...

Vista Ultimate is $751 AUD (if Ultimate is $400 USD, then a direct conversion is $506 AUD, not counting taxes and such)

So, it's $245 AUD more expensive than currency conversion allows for.

[Jerry Grey Member]

I only had a problem with WGA when I was "stealing" :devil: , other than that I never had a problem with WGA. True paying customers doesn't get affected with WGA..

[altermind]

out of 4 computers with XP on it.... all but one are legal... AND THE illigal one WORKS best.... does not get 100 percent CPU hangs on startup.... and thats on a duelcore..... gota love that eh ?

I know it should be all legal.. but honistally.. I'm still gona hack them all.... just so I don't get screwed around as much lol

[theyarecomingforyou]

Vista Ultimate is $751 AUD (if Ultimate is $400 USD, then a direct conversion is $506 AUD, not counting taxes and such)

So, it's $245 AUD more expensive than currency conversion allows for.

I know, I saw an article about that a while back... it seems like you get shafted as much as, if not more than, us. Wasn't the X360 worldwide launch also delayed over there? In this day and age it is disgusting to see such blatant disregard for consumers - worldwide prices should be equalised, though still allowing lower prices for economically deprived countries like Brazil, China, etc. Instead things seem to be getting worse! There is no excuse for such treatment from a company as large as Microsoft.

[MazX_Napalm]

Find a friend in a 3rd world country and get them to purchase Vista for you. I'm going to do that. It works out so much cheaper. You don't even have to wait to get it posted to you. Just get the product key and borrow someone else's copy.