Why Microsoft would want WGA to phone home

As the WGA scandal drags on, we take a look at the reasons why Microsoft's new antipiracy tool will continue to check up on you long after your installation is finished.<BR><BR> Story.

 

[deuxbits]

I have no objections to Microsoft trying to prevent people from stealing their product(s). What I object to is when this becomes an issue for me, the user, like the WPA freaking out when I change a motherboard or realizing that I have to be careful with my hardware installation - Windows activation sequence. Unfortunately, as with most anti-piracy schemes, legitimate users are inconvinienced. Ultimately I dream that MS, through WGA "issues" (all mentioned above), will encourage migration to alternate OS's free of these issues. Freedom is a very powerful feeling.

 

[Pariah]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> At that point, politely but firmly I am told that Microsoft does not provide telephone support for Genuine Advantage problems. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Holy shit!<BR>That's a breath takingly arrogant position, even from Microsoft.<BR>They infest someone's computer with software and then refuse to deal with the problems that result?<BR><BR>Amazing, really, really amazing.

 

[Ken Fisher]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WaltC:<br>To begin with, your comments comparing Windows activation to a one-time tetnus shot are in error. </div>
</blockquote>No. WPA does not communicate and update with Microsoft and then reexamine the licensed state of a machine on a regular basis by design. If you change a significant amount of hardware on a WPA machine, you can trigger a reactivation, but no, the code itself nor the process has changed. Reexamination in WPA is triggered by a series of hardware events, whereas WGA reexamination is continual and dynamically updated. There is a significant difference.<br><br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">How's that? I think they've clearly enunciated their "vision" for the WGA program--it exists to weed out bootleg copies of the OS. Everything else is merely a technicality to that end. </div>
</blockquote>Ah yes, everything that is left out is a 'merely a technicality' to you, so everything 'important' has been revealed. Neat trick!<br><br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A good journalistic rule of thumb when it comes to "trusted sources" is to identify them by attribution so that your readers may independently decide things like trustworthiness...-- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif -- </div>
</blockquote>. Thanks for sharing your opinion on how I should treat my <i>anonymous</i> sources.

 

[Ken Fisher]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by taznar:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> A spokesperson for the company firmly denied that the tool would be used in such a manner, saying that "No, Microsoft antipiracy technologies cannot and will not turn off your computer." </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Can you be a little more specific? Who said this, and when? From the zdnet article and others I've seen, MS representatives have been carefully skirting the question. I was off camping with the kids over the weekend, so if I missed it, I'd appreciate an update. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>They gave the same PR statement to everyone over the start of the weekend.

 

[jonabbey]

Is anyone else put off by Microsoft's use of the terms 'counterfeit' and 'genuine' here? It seems to be a misuse of the term, given that bits are bits, and one copy of a set of bits is just as much that set as another.<BR><BR>I understand that it works better for them rhetorically than 'unpaid for' or 'unlicensed', as it seeks to convey that the product is a 'shoddy ripoff', rather than a perfect copy that happens not to have been paid for, but that's at a cost of making misleading implications as to the nature of digital artifacts.

 

[Jim Frost]

So far I haven't seen anyone mention the most important reason they would want to use WGA.<BR><BR>It's not about consumers. Microsoft sealed up the holes where consumers could buy PCs without Windows licenses more than a decade ago. The only thing Microsoft needs to do in that respect is find the vendors who are installing it illegally, and they've been doing just fine in that respect for a long time. And, in any case, WGA really doesn't help with that.<BR><BR>The thing they've been having a lot of trouble with is businesses since the licensing has historically been more of a mutual trust kind if thing. Businesses do in fact abuse that on a regular basis. WGA gives Microsoft a way to determine whether or not businesses are complying with their licenses remotely rather than requiring an on-site audit. It works in two ways: First, they can easily detect if there is license duplication. Second, they can count unique machines and compare to the business' reports.<BR><BR>So: Even if Microsoft is not going to turn off your computer WGA can be a very effective antipiracy solution for them, so long as you realize that they don't have to turn off your computer to put the hurt on you. That's what the SBA and courts are for.

 

[jonabbey]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jim Frost:<BR>It's not about consumers. Microsoft sealed up the holes where consumers could buy PCs without Windows licenses more than a decade ago. The only thing Microsoft needs to do in that respect is find the vendors who are installing it illegally, and they've been doing just fine in that respect for a long time. And, in any case, WGA really doesn't help with that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>They sealed up the holes where consumers could buy PCs without Windows licenses more than a decade ago?<BR><BR>I thought that was when Anne Bingaman at FTC nailed Microsoft for its practice of forcing PC vendors to pay them for each PC shipped, regardless of its ultimate use, in order to get the competitive price.<BR><BR>I know I can go out and buy PCs with Linux installed, so how exactly has Microsoft 'sealed up' the market for PCs without Windows licenses?

 

[taznar]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> They gave the same PR statement to everyone over the start of the weekend. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Thanks. I'm finally getting to some of the articles on other sites that go into a bit more detail. I guess you can tell where I started in trying to catch up from my weekend off.

 

[shdragon]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Magic Man:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ig<br>Q: Why does Microsoft want WGA to phone home?<br><br>A: Greed.<br><br>Comment: Trying to increase profitability means exerting more control over customers. There is a delicate balance here: too much control, customers get annoyed and regulators get involved. Has the scale tipped? </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>So wanting people to pay for their software is greed? -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif -- </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>No, but implementing corporate policy that forces customer PCs w/ legally & legitimately bought software to <i>prove</i> that they're paying customers by surreptitiously "phoning home" breeds distrust & contempt.

 

[Ken Fisher]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jim Frost:<BR>The thing they've been having a lot of trouble with is businesses since the licensing has historically been more of a mutual trust kind if thing. Businesses do in fact abuse that on a regular basis. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually, there is some belief that with active monitoring, businesses will end up buying and using fewer licenses than they do today. I'm not sure that I buy that, but I've consulted for more than one business that had more licenses than were in use owing to the way they purchased machines.

 

[Gisboth]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by insomniac11:<BR>They want to stop people from going home and installing that fresh new copy of Vista on every computer at home without paying for each license. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Expand that out to small businesses. Those are the real targets of this, imo.<BR><BR>With the current system, and X number of reinstalls within a certain timeframe before phone activation is required, you can still put a copy of XP on a few machines.<BR><BR>Part of the "phone home" would involve keeping track of what keys are calling in from what configurations, I'd expect.<BR><BR>WGA allows msft to know how many computers call in each month using the same key. IOW, how many computers are using the same copy.<BR><BR>This also allows the previously mentioned "Vista 10-pack" to be easily implemented. The 10-pack plan is not designed for consumer use; it's for small businesses.

 

[daishi]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Caesar:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WaltC:<BR>To begin with, your comments comparing Windows activation to a one-time tetnus shot are in error. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>No. WPA does not communicate and update with Microsoft and then reexamine the licensed state of a machine on a regular basis by design. If you change a significant amount of hardware on a WPA machine, you can trigger a reactivation, but no, the code itself nor the process has changed. Reexamination in WPA is triggered by a series of hardware events, whereas WGA reexamination is continual and dynamically updated. There is a significant difference.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Caesar have you read this thread? if WGA functions like that when it's out of beta MS is going to have a lot of POed end users on their hands. WGA shouldn't give a crap about connecting a hard drive to the system or not (WTFBBQ!!)

 

[jimbob3450]

Another and to me more obvious reason that WGA "phones home" is to prevent multiple installations of the same copy of Windows from masquerading as system updates. If the system that a given copy of Windows was first installed on continues to phone home even after a user has "upgraded" his computer and re-activated his copy, then Microsoft knows that it was a new install, not a real upgrade.<BR><BR>Without the original install phoning home it would be difficult to identify the duplicate installation.<BR><BR>Another thing that should not be ignored is that information is worth money. Microsoft will know (within some tolerance) how many active legitimate copies of Windows there are (and which versions). Copies that have been discarded with old computers will not show up. Of course PCs not on the internet also won't be identified, but I suspect that these days there are relatively few that fit that category. As this program continues, it may be that MS can identify those by comparing the number of sales and activations to the number of unique computers actively reporting to WGA. I am not sure how Microsoft would use the information, but it would be useful for making economic projections to know the life cycle of an install.<BR><BR>Jim

 

[b-ape]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by daishi:<BR>Caesar have you read this thread? if WGA functions like that when it's out of beta MS is going to have a lot of POed end users on their hands. WGA shouldn't give a crap about connecting a hard drive to the system or not (WTFBBQ!!) </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Isn't it just as likely that the problem that caused his video drivers to go crazy also caused problems with WGA, rather than WGA causing all the problems? I've had times when my registry got borked, and Windows insisted on re-activation (among other problems).

 

[nocubes4me]

Just for fun...<BR><BR>I chose to not activate, so I would be able to say with authority what happens.<BR><BR>After 30 days of refusing to activate, you get a GINA burp - can't log in, tells you you have to activate, back to login if you decline activation. Repeat loop until the OS is activated.<BR><BR>So - not exactly turning off the computer (making the PR statement valid - "No, Microsoft antipiracy technologies cannot and will not turn off your computer."), but effectively making it of no use. Not limited functioning, ZERO functioning until it's activated.<BR><BR>I would expect the WGA thing to be similar - until an authorized code is entered, no GUI.<BR><BR>R.<BR><BR>- various ways around this, my own (legal) method is to run Windows exclusively as the guest OS - that guest OS has already been validated, and is highly portable in VM/Parallels.

 

[jkrohn]

Just how many licenses does micro$oft want to sell anyway?<BR>Everyone I know has bought new computers with xp pre installed and no one has ever asked for a refund as the old copy of xp on the old computer can be legally transferred to the new one.<BR><BR>Does anyone know how many licenses micro$hit has sold in the US? More then 1 for every living human ? and dog?

 

[b-ape]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jkrohn:<BR>Everyone I know has bought new computers with xp pre installed and no one has ever asked for a refund as the old copy of xp on the old computer can be legally transferred to the new one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Actually, for most copies bought in conjunction with a PC, you cannot transfer the license. The OEM license (which is significantly cheaper than retail) specifically states that you cannot transfer the license to a new computer. This enables your OEM you pay much, much less for a license to install Windows on machines they sell (how much less depends on their volume). If this bothers you, complain to your OEM.

 

[Mike Evangelist]

Here's the nastiness in Microshaft's own words:<BR><BR>"Can I transfer my operating system license from an old PC to a new one?<BR><BR>ANSWER. Not unless it was purchased as a Full-Packaged Product from a retail store (i.e., Windows in a box). Current OEM licenses for all Microsoft operating system products are not transferable from one machine to another. ..."

 

[b-ape]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mike Evangelist:<BR>Here's the nastiness in Microshaft's own words:<BR><BR>"Can I transfer my operating system license from an old PC to a new one?<BR><BR>ANSWER. Not unless it was purchased as a Full-Packaged Product from a retail store (i.e., Windows in a box). Current OEM licenses for all Microsoft operating system products are not transferable from one machine to another. ..." </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I don't understand why this is "nasty." The consumer already saw the benefit for this...their computer costed less than it would have if the OEM had used a Windows retail box version. If you want to avoid that and get a retail copy of Windows, ask your OEM for it, or ask for a "blank" machine and get your own retail copy.

 

[mav.rc]

I use VM's (on a VMware ESX Server) for setting up test environments for various products or scenarios. Activation is the worst part about setting up Windows test environments.<BR><BR>You see, I work for a major computer manufacturer. I am allowed to have a VMware ESX box here, however, one of the major stipulations that I have is that the virtual machines are not allowed to have corporate network access (and thus, are isolated from the Internet as well.) <BR><BR>This is not a big deal with WPA, because it can be done over the phone. It's still a pain in the butt to call MS every time I need another client VM, or SBS testbed, but it's doable. It makes cloning VM's worthless, because every time you sysprep you have to reactivate, but at least it's workable.<BR><BR>WGA, however, is useless without an Internet connection. I set up a test VM this morning for Internet Explorer 7, beta 3, but was unable to do anything with it because even though the download site requires you to go through a WGA check before downloading it, the IE7 installer requires you to check AGAIN. So much for ever testing IE7.

 

[RojBlake]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jonabbey:<BR>Is anyone else put off by Microsoft's use of the terms 'counterfeit' and 'genuine' here? It seems to be a misuse of the term, given that bits are bits, and one copy of a set of bits is just as much that set as another. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>"Counterfeit" can reasonably be used to describe products of this type that are produced and sold illegitimately, so it's appropriate to use that term WRT pirated copies of Windows, I would think. It's certainly a damn sight more accurate than calling them "stolen" copies, so I have to give MS props for not following the **AA's lead there.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I understand that it works better for them rhetorically than 'unpaid for' or 'unlicensed', as it seeks to convey that the product is a 'shoddy ripoff', rather than a perfect copy that happens not to have been paid for, but that's at a cost of making misleading implications as to the nature of digital artifacts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I don't think there's anything in the meaning of "counterfeit" that implies it is not, or cannot be a perfect copy of the original, is there?

 

[Riptide]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by deuxbits:<BR>What I object to is when this becomes an issue for me, the user, like the WPA freaking out when I change a motherboard or realizing that I have to be careful with my hardware installation - Windows activation sequence. Unfortunately, as with most anti-piracy schemes, legitimate users are inconvinienced. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree. My copy of XP home was first activated five months ago. Fine since then.<BR><BR>Last week I changed my motherboard out and reinstalled. It wanted to activate. Fine, that was expected. This time, only the 2nd in 5 months that I've had to activate, required calling them. Annoying. I got hung up on the first time and the second try I did get a person and was able to activate. The whole process including hold time was over 1/2 hour though. This isn't a huge deal to me but it was an inconvenience.

 

[Vampyre]

WGA is a testbed for technology they'll be using to license you software on a time-based system.<BR><BR>For example, you'll license Windows Vista XP Pro 2.0 for 1 year, rather than purchasing the license outright. It'll probably cost you as much, and over the long term, more than a new OS did previously. After 1 year, if you don't renew, WGA, or it's sucessor, will shut off your OS until you do renew, or more likely, pay a 'reactivation fee'.<BR><BR>I remember Microsoft talking about this a few years ago. The buzz from their customers was pretty negative, so they publically shelved it, I think. Privately, I think it's their next real goal.<BR><BR>Not paying your Windows Maintenance? Well, sorry about your luck, but you can't use your program anymore. You agreed to that in the EULA, it was on page 52 subparagraph 7.<BR><BR>Ya, call me paranoid. In 10 years when it's reality, you'll forget that I said it, but you'll won't think I'm paranoid then.

 

[Vampyre]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by b-ape:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jkrohn:<BR>Everyone I know has bought new computers with xp pre installed and no one has ever asked for a refund as the old copy of xp on the old computer can be legally transferred to the new one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Actually, for most copies bought in conjunction with a PC, you cannot transfer the license. The OEM license (which is significantly cheaper than retail) specifically states that you cannot transfer the license to a new computer. This enables your OEM you pay much, much less for a license to install Windows on machines they sell (how much less depends on their volume). If this bothers you, complain to your OEM. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Or call and tell them you had a lightning strike and had to replace lots of components in the computer. Act significantly stupid about it, and they'll activate it for you.

 

[Jim Frost]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jonabbey:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jim Frost:<BR>It's not about consumers. Microsoft sealed up the holes where consumers could buy PCs without Windows licenses more than a decade ago. The only thing Microsoft needs to do in that respect is find the vendors who are installing it illegally, and they've been doing just fine in that respect for a long time. And, in any case, WGA really doesn't help with that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I thought that was when Anne Bingaman at FTC nailed Microsoft for its practice of forcing PC vendors to pay them for each PC shipped, regardless of its ultimate use, in order to get the competitive price. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Sure, and now Microsoft makes them differentiate product lines if they want to ship something other than Windows. If you ship a product line with Windows then every PC in that product line must ship with Windows. Which is why, for instance, you can't get a Dell XPS with Linux on it. And why it's almost impossible to get a laptop without Windows on it (unless, of course, it's a Mac).<BR><BR>There are a handful of small vendors that give you more flexibility but their market share is infinitesimal.<BR><BR>So: Virtually all PCs shipped to home consumers already have a valid Windows license, and only a small percentage of those will ever be upgraded. Thus Microsoft has little need to lock things down further in that market.<BR><BR>But businesses ... well, that's another thing entirely. One of the downsides of Microsoft's artificial segmentation of their OS product is that the Home version is cheaper than the business-oriented versions. So there's a temptation to buy something with Home and then reinstall Pro on it. Sometimes, gasp, they don't buy enough Pro licenses to cover all the installs. Or Server licenses. Unless a full audit is done, who's to know? I know for a fact that this kind of cheating goes on a lot, I see it on a regular basis.<BR><BR>WGA gives Microsoft a way to detect it, and the will use that evidence to spur on investigations. You will see WGA turn into SBA audits and legal action, just watch and see.<BR><BR>What you aren't going to see is Microsoft turning off your PC remotely, and if they're not going to do that then it's pretty much a moot issue at the consumer level.

 

[Hat Monster]

What bothers me is not what MS are doing, but how they're doing it.<BR><BR>They're installing WGA over automatic updates, which is a <b>beta</b> and has caused quite a few issues, then are <b>refusing to support it!</b><BR><BR>That's the bullshit. If they're not going to support something, the LAST place it needs to be is on AU. What MS should have done was place it as an optional WindowsXP update and given users an <i>incentive</i> to download it. A worthwhile incentive, not some stupid screensaver. They could then iron out all the problems with the beta and make it a finished product, THEN put it on AU.

 

[b-ape]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vampyre:<BR>WGA is a testbed for technology they'll be using to license you software on a time-based system.<BR><BR>For example, you'll license Windows Vista XP Pro 2.0 for 1 year, rather than purchasing the license outright. It'll probably cost you as much, and over the long term, more than a new OS did previously. After 1 year, if you don't renew, WGA, or it's sucessor, will shut off your OS until you do renew, or more likely, pay a 'reactivation fee'.<BR><BR>I remember Microsoft talking about this a few years ago. The buzz from their customers was pretty negative, so they publically shelved it, I think. Privately, I think it's their next real goal.<BR><BR>Not paying your Windows Maintenance? Well, sorry about your luck, but you can't use your program anymore. You agreed to that in the EULA, it was on page 52 subparagraph 7.<BR><BR>Ya, call me paranoid. In 10 years when it's reality, you'll forget that I said it, but you'll won't think I'm paranoid then. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>They said that about activation, too.<BR><BR>For businesses, the license via time is a workable solution. But for consumers, I think it's been pretty obvious to Microsoft that every time they've tried that kind of licensing, it's been a failure. Amazingly enough, they recognize that for people to switch to this formula, they would have to add some signficant value.

 

[b-ape]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hat Monster:<BR>What bothers me is not what MS are doing, but how they're doing it.<BR><BR>They're installing WGA over automatic updates, which is a <B>beta</B> and has caused quite a few issues, then are <B>refusing to support it!</B><BR><BR>That's the bullshit. If they're not going to support something, the LAST place it needs to be is on AU. What MS should have done was place it as an optional WindowsXP update and given users an <I>incentive</I> to download it. A worthwhile incentive, not some stupid screensaver. They could then iron out all the problems with the beta and make it a finished product, THEN put it on AU. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Agreed.

 

[WaltC]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Caesar:<br><br>No. WPA does not communicate and update with Microsoft and then reexamine the licensed state of a machine on a regular basis by design. If you change a significant amount of hardware on a WPA machine, you can trigger a reactivation, but no, the code itself nor the process has changed. Reexamination in WPA is triggered by a series of hardware events, whereas WGA reexamination is continual and dynamically updated. There is a significant difference. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Yes. That's what I said--there's a big difference--but it's an error to state that WPA is a "one-time" event. WPA checks happen locally everytime you boot inside the OS. As far as "communication with Microsoft goes," that of course isn't bad in and of itself (eg, everyday Windows updates.) The fact is that WPA can lock a machine down when reactivation is requested but ignored, after a certain time period (30 days, IIRC.) To my knowledge, WGA has no lock-down switch. WGA's penalties as encountered thus far seem restricted to denying updates and informing the user that his copy of the OS is illegitimate. Of the two, I think I prefer WGA to WPA, but that's just me...-- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif -- It seems, unfortunately, as if Microsoft wants to saddle us with *both*--which I have hopes may change with Vista, as I stated.<br><br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Ah yes, everything that is left out is a 'merely a technicality' to you, so everything 'important' has been revealed. Neat trick!<br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Heh...-- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif -- No, I mean, it's no less a "neat trick" for me to say that than it is a "neat trick" for other people to infer that a file-update communications process with Microsoft occurs for nefarious purposes. If you don't <i>know</i> that something is nefarious, then what is the point of inferring it?<br> <br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Thanks for sharing your opinion on how I should treat my <i>anonymous</i> sources. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>I was actually talking about how you might consider treating your readers...-- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif -- I don't really see any reason to elevate the status of an anonymous source to one of unquestionable veracity. As you note here, it's always much easier to quote anonymous sources than it is to attribute your sources, isn't it? That's just journalism 101: attribution is <i>always</i> better than anonymous in terms of authenticity and credibility, imo. At least when I disagree with an identified source I know with whom I have the disagreement; with anonymous sources I really have no idea who it really is I'm disagreeing with...-- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif --

 

[Lythimus]

I worked for a company repair who distributed pirated software, including OSes. We simply charged for the service, not that that makes it any more legal, lol. I no longer work there, and I heard they got a few angry customers once WGA started harrassing people telling them their computers were running on a pirated version of Windows, but as far as I know, nothing much happened to them. I believe they do not install XP on systems anymore, stick with 2000 unless there is a key, lol.

 

[metalgeeksolid]

what Microsoft needs to do to improve WPA/WGA is to use an external/internal hardware device that is separate from the other components in your system as the actual license key. I re-install and change my hardware configuration waaaaaaaaaay too often to be on Microsoft's "good" list. You can bet within a couple of month's, I'll be locked out of Windows due to how I use my computer. While I agree Microsoft should make piracy difficult, the company really needs to think about the nerds/hobbyists like me and not step on our toes.

 

[Mister Morden]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I, however, refuse to pay Microsoft any money for this so called "Operating System". Pretty much the only reason I'm still running it is World of Warcraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I think you can even run WoW under WINE in Linux, no Cedega required.

 

[DavidH]

First, a quibble -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif -- . Several posters have referred to the "SBA" going after business users with unlicensed software. I think you mean the Business Software Alliance, frequently referred to as the BSA. The Small Business Administration, frequently referred to as the SBA, is a part of the U.S. Dept. of Commerce.<br><br>Second, Apple offers a Mac OS X Family Pack license at an MSRP premium of (IIRC) $50 over the $129 single copy license. I actually bought one for OS X 10.3, since I expected to install it on both my 7300 and my Blue & White G3. So far I have only installed it on the 7300, since my new G5 Mac came with OS X 10.4 installed. So I've still got the unused rights to install on 4 more machines. I think Microsoft should be offering something like this. For all I know, maybe they do--or intend to.<br><br>David H.