Whatever Microsoft does next, is their call. Don't we have to do whatever they say? If they say SS and CC numbers, then we must obey the great master. You think what you think and I'll think what I think. Obviously, neither of our minds are changing.
yukichigai
Diamond Member
- Apr 23, 2003
- 6,404
- 0
- 76
I've cut off the rest of the quote because after that sentance I no longer find your opinions relevant. STaSh, you have been brainwashed by Microsoft and their propaganda. If MS really just wanted people to know if they had a pirated copy then the Windows Update site would just constantly complain at them about "your copy of Windows is pirated!" but wouldn't stop them from getting updates. In fact, that would extend to all update methods. That would be the only reliable way to make sure everyone knows whether or not their copy is valid, because 75% of Windows users never use the Windows Update website. (I'm making the statistic up, but it sure seems like that many)
Whatever the true motivations behind WGA, they aren't benign and "for your protection." They have a real effect on the average security level of computers on the internet, as well as the propigation(sp?) rates of viruses and one hell of a potential security nightmare if someone figures out how to override the WGA dll so it flat out denies your ability to get security updates.
P.S. The "hack" still works, at least it did night before last.
I'm not ready to try any of those work arounds yet; although, I do appreciate the links. Also, I prefer to not activate automatic updates.
Speaking of updates... is the Windows Update server slow as hell for anyone else? I've noticed that connection speed has been dropping to dial-up levels.
yukichigai
Diamond Member
- Apr 23, 2003
- 6,404
- 0
- 76
I would contend that they're being generous in the same way that the USA is generous for not nuking another superpower and initiating a nuclear winter. If MS didn't allow security updates for pirated installs the sheer speed of virus propigation would skyrocket to a rate where eventually someone who could actually hurt them -- like the feds -- would get very cross.
It's true. All Microsoft employees have to attend propaganda 101 on their first day of work. We have to drink kool-aid, and wrestle life sized penguins. They even make us sacrifice our iPods to appease the Benefactors (Gates and Ballmer). It's a real life altering experience.
So let's see. 75% of Windows users don't use Windows Update, so because Windows Update now requires WGA, the Intarweb is going to explode. Do I have that right? That's an interesting thought process you have there. According to you, 75% of Windows users either a) use Automatic Updates and are therefore not subject to WGA; b) don't update in the first place.
I suppose it then follows that the 25% of people who do use Windows Update in this fantasy will be so offended and/or inconvienenced by the extra 10 seconds it takes to do the WGA check that they will stop using WU. So I would guess that they then either a) start using Automatic Updates instead or b) stop updating altogether. Is this where you are getting the OMFG TEH INTERNET IS GOING TO MELT!!!!!!1111?
Really? I'd love to hear your views on what WGA is for. You seem to have everything all figured out. Careful though! We wouldn't want to think that you have been brainwashed by anti-Microsoft FUD and propaganda.
yukichigai
Diamond Member
- Apr 23, 2003
- 6,404
- 0
- 76
Ah, you work for them. I won't even bother with the rest of what I was going to say, except "DIAF".
I don't know what DIAF means, but 'rot in hell' was a much more profound rebuttal, IMHO. Either way, good show!
Sweet!
Nothing like making an argument by resorting to ad-homs. It's a real credibilty enhancer.
Nothing like making an argument by resorting to ad-homs. It's a real credibilty enhancer.
yukichigai
Diamond Member
- Apr 23, 2003
- 6,404
- 0
- 76
It's not an argument, it's called walking away. From what I've seen of other people's attempts, trying to make a point in an argument with you is like trying to horsewhip ether. I'll save my opinions for people who haven't already made up their minds.
On another note, what's the word on which versions of XP are affected? It seems like certain VLK versions are exempt.
Dude, I am all ears for your points and opinions. I am truely interested in hearing what you think WGA is intended for. But yet all I've heard is anti-Microsoft drivel and ad-homs.
You disagreed with my statement that WGA is there to help consumers. I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with me. I do have a problem with someone who disagrees and doesn't tell me why.
As far my mind being made up, you might be surprised. For instance, I think the current implementation is maddeningly inconsistent. Requiring WGA for WU/MU but not AU is stupid, IMO. WGA for files off the Download Center is fine, but WU/MU/AU are all places to get critical security updates. Why do some of places require WGA and some don't?
OK I'll bite
How does it protect me again? It protects Microsoft and only Microsoft. It is another step in reducing piracy so that they can have higher profit margins. It would only protect me if somehow they were able to snuff out piracy and decided to reduce the absurd price an average person such as myself has to pay for Windows - and that's not going to happen on either side of the equation. If I bought a Dell, I would get Windows for almost nothing, however if I just want Windows and not the Dell, I have to pay through the teeth for it.
People don't like it when software scans their computer and sends information about it to a company. It is an invasion of privacy, and people just don't like it. Remember Intel with their CPU serial numbers set up to be sent over the internet? That went over like a lead balloon because people get tired of companies poking trying to track information about you.
So you are all ears? If I buy a copy of Windows, I should be able to install it on every computer in my house. If I buy a spatula, there isn't any EULA saying once I use it in a frying pan, it has to stay with that frying pan. If I buy a car, I can let whoever I want drive it. This is especially true if Microsoft is going to keep charging crazy prices for their operating system to your average consumer, and at the same time practically giving it away to Dell and the like.
So to summarize:
1) WGA is not there to protect me
2) WGA is there to protect Microsoft's profit margin and share prices
3) If Microsoft didn't charge so much for their operating sytem, less people would pirate it in the first place.
How does it protect me again? It protects Microsoft and only Microsoft. It is another step in reducing piracy so that they can have higher profit margins. It would only protect me if somehow they were able to snuff out piracy and decided to reduce the absurd price an average person such as myself has to pay for Windows - and that's not going to happen on either side of the equation. If I bought a Dell, I would get Windows for almost nothing, however if I just want Windows and not the Dell, I have to pay through the teeth for it.
People don't like it when software scans their computer and sends information about it to a company. It is an invasion of privacy, and people just don't like it. Remember Intel with their CPU serial numbers set up to be sent over the internet? That went over like a lead balloon because people get tired of companies poking trying to track information about you.
So you are all ears? If I buy a copy of Windows, I should be able to install it on every computer in my house. If I buy a spatula, there isn't any EULA saying once I use it in a frying pan, it has to stay with that frying pan. If I buy a car, I can let whoever I want drive it. This is especially true if Microsoft is going to keep charging crazy prices for their operating system to your average consumer, and at the same time practically giving it away to Dell and the like.
So to summarize:
1) WGA is not there to protect me
2) WGA is there to protect Microsoft's profit margin and share prices
3) If Microsoft didn't charge so much for their operating sytem, less people would pirate it in the first place.
I know that if I buy a Windows license I'd realy would like it to be a REAL Windows license.
There are companies that fraudrently sell people's computers and charge them for versions of Windows that are not legitament.
That's what this WGA is designed to stop.. It's designed to stop crooked companies from ripping off microsoft and ripping off customers by defrauding people.
There is nothing wrong with WGA that isn't already wrong with windows licensing and such. It's nothing new, nothing worse then before, and can be convienently ignored by the vast majority of people that pirate software.
It's a marketing thing...
There are companies that fraudrently sell people's computers and charge them for versions of Windows that are not legitament.
That's what this WGA is designed to stop.. It's designed to stop crooked companies from ripping off microsoft and ripping off customers by defrauding people.
There is nothing wrong with WGA that isn't already wrong with windows licensing and such. It's nothing new, nothing worse then before, and can be convienently ignored by the vast majority of people that pirate software.
It's a marketing thing...
yukichigai
Diamond Member
- Apr 23, 2003
- 6,404
- 0
- 76
If you want people to think you're prepared to argue and not just flame, here's a hint: don't respond with anything like "OMFG TEH INTERNET IS GOING TO MELT!!!!!!1111".
There, now that I have that out of the way....
My problem with Microsoft is not that they're "evil" or anything. MS's business practices are no more facist than 90% of the other software companies out there. The problem with said practices is that they're being done on such a large scale. Last I heard, Windows still holds a 90% share in the OS market. Windows powers our governments, our schools, and dozens of other facets of our lives. Even if you don't have a computer something you do during your day was in some way affected by a computer running Windows. I think that may be true even for the Amish.
Now there's nothing wrong with a company trying to stop piracy of its software, but there are certain tactics which I feel should be ruled out in the case of something as pervasive as Windows. Limiting access to security features in any way whatsoever should not be a valid tactic. A rather large number of PCs are connected to the internet; over half of them have highspeed access. If even 1% of them are unpatched that's a staggering number of PCs that can be turned into viral reproduction centers, DDoS zombies, and all sorts of other evil things. Making it harder to get security updates for even a small percentage of users can have a dramatic effect on the rest of us.
Now sure, you can say that there are ways around it. Automatic Updates work regardless of whether or not your OS was pirated. You can still get updates through the normal download page. For most of us, this is all a no brainer. But keep in mind, most computer users aren't most of us. A majority of people on the computer are the kind of people who still put masking tape over their VCRs to stop 'em from flashing 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00. If they aren't confused by PCs they're lazy. (Hell, most of us are lazy) I know several people who, after failing the WGA check, closed Windows Update and went back to what they were doing before, with no intention of updating. One of 'em didn't even want to do the hack because it was too much work. These are the kinds of people that virus writers live for, and because of the current trend in MS's security policies they're becoming more and more plentiful. Now true, the impact this will have is not incredibly large and far-reaching, but it's significant enough that there will be other effects, and any anti-piracy measure which makes computer security any more difficult is a step in the wrong direction.
If MS had simply decided to prevent access to non-critical updates on Windows Update I would be much more impressed with their policy. I'd still complain, no doubt, but it wouldn't be the same kind of complaining. Instead we have to deal with a policy that makes no sense from any side of the coin. There's protection here, but not there. You can't download certain software if you don't validate your copy of Windows, unless of course you go to a different page to get it. At the end of the day nobody knows what is going on, and the average computer is a little less secure.
If MS truly wanted to make it easy for people to know whether or not they've got a pirated copy of Windows they would simply include a non-disabling WGA check on every download avenue, or at least WU/MU and AU. I don't buy this "WGA is for your protection" stuff because if I can figure out a better method than what's current then I'm sure plenty of people at MS did as well. There's some other motivation here, be it greed, marketing, or brain slugs. But this, as I said, is nothing new. Businesses do things for the bottom line, or for image, or whatnot. MS hasn't realized that when they pull this kind of stuff the entire world feels the ripples.
What's an ad-hom?
There, now that I have that out of the way....
My problem with Microsoft is not that they're "evil" or anything. MS's business practices are no more facist than 90% of the other software companies out there. The problem with said practices is that they're being done on such a large scale. Last I heard, Windows still holds a 90% share in the OS market. Windows powers our governments, our schools, and dozens of other facets of our lives. Even if you don't have a computer something you do during your day was in some way affected by a computer running Windows. I think that may be true even for the Amish.
Now there's nothing wrong with a company trying to stop piracy of its software, but there are certain tactics which I feel should be ruled out in the case of something as pervasive as Windows. Limiting access to security features in any way whatsoever should not be a valid tactic. A rather large number of PCs are connected to the internet; over half of them have highspeed access. If even 1% of them are unpatched that's a staggering number of PCs that can be turned into viral reproduction centers, DDoS zombies, and all sorts of other evil things. Making it harder to get security updates for even a small percentage of users can have a dramatic effect on the rest of us.
Now sure, you can say that there are ways around it. Automatic Updates work regardless of whether or not your OS was pirated. You can still get updates through the normal download page. For most of us, this is all a no brainer. But keep in mind, most computer users aren't most of us. A majority of people on the computer are the kind of people who still put masking tape over their VCRs to stop 'em from flashing 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00. If they aren't confused by PCs they're lazy. (Hell, most of us are lazy) I know several people who, after failing the WGA check, closed Windows Update and went back to what they were doing before, with no intention of updating. One of 'em didn't even want to do the hack because it was too much work. These are the kinds of people that virus writers live for, and because of the current trend in MS's security policies they're becoming more and more plentiful. Now true, the impact this will have is not incredibly large and far-reaching, but it's significant enough that there will be other effects, and any anti-piracy measure which makes computer security any more difficult is a step in the wrong direction.
If MS had simply decided to prevent access to non-critical updates on Windows Update I would be much more impressed with their policy. I'd still complain, no doubt, but it wouldn't be the same kind of complaining. Instead we have to deal with a policy that makes no sense from any side of the coin. There's protection here, but not there. You can't download certain software if you don't validate your copy of Windows, unless of course you go to a different page to get it. At the end of the day nobody knows what is going on, and the average computer is a little less secure.
If MS truly wanted to make it easy for people to know whether or not they've got a pirated copy of Windows they would simply include a non-disabling WGA check on every download avenue, or at least WU/MU and AU. I don't buy this "WGA is for your protection" stuff because if I can figure out a better method than what's current then I'm sure plenty of people at MS did as well. There's some other motivation here, be it greed, marketing, or brain slugs. But this, as I said, is nothing new. Businesses do things for the bottom line, or for image, or whatnot. MS hasn't realized that when they pull this kind of stuff the entire world feels the ripples.
What's an ad-hom?
Short for "Ad hominem" which is short for "argumentum ad hominem"
It's a personal attack or relying on personal authority to make a aguement that has little or nothing to do with the subject in a debate.
Something like this:
"I've got years in the IT tech industry picking out solutions targetted for specific clients and specific problems therefore when I say that having a tattoo is immoral, you can take that as a fact."
Specificly, this arguement, it's refering to a variation on ad hominem that is known as "argumentum ad personam" were you make up a arguement that goes like this:
"Linux sucks because your a stupid-head"
"I ain't never gonna let the man get me down!"
(Family Guy The Movie)
I find it hilarious that people are throwing their toys out of the pram because they have to click a button marked Validate. If you've got a legitimate copy of Windows, then what are you fretting about?
Oh, and the argument that it's "one step away from requiring SS & CC numbers"- you do realise the immense public backlash if Microsoft started asking for that information?
WGA is nothing. It's akin to a police officer asking to see your ID once. Big deal.
(Family Guy The Movie)
I find it hilarious that people are throwing their toys out of the pram because they have to click a button marked Validate. If you've got a legitimate copy of Windows, then what are you fretting about?
Oh, and the argument that it's "one step away from requiring SS & CC numbers"- you do realise the immense public backlash if Microsoft started asking for that information?
WGA is nothing. It's akin to a police officer asking to see your ID once. Big deal.
Grab a cup of coffee and I will illuminate the true purpose of WGA.
It's stop 37.
Decades back, manufactures shipped products with little paper warranty cards so consumers could fill out kinds of details and mail them in. This would give the manufacturers all kinds of useful information like, 'what age men buy our junk?' and 'how much liability would flamable seatcushions put us in?'
Then REALLY wanted this information so the tried requiring customers to return warranty cards or they wouldn't honor the repairs. Fortunately, the US courts smacked that down hard. Now, if we take a sip of coffee right here and think about today, you'll might see that corporations have found sneaky ways to exploit the fact that each of us has a two-way datastream inside of our homes.
Consider the transition:
DOS 1 through Windows 95: Just load the software.
Windows 98 - Windows 2003: Load the software and enter a product ID.
Windows XP - Load the software, enter a product ID, and validate that ID.
Windows XP SP2, Load the software, enter a product ID, validate that ID, run WGA.
Raise your hand if you think we're done expanding this list.
Maybe the next iteration will be:
Windows Vista - Load the software, enter a product ID, validate that ID, run WGA, create a user account.
Windows Vista 360 - Load the software, enter a product ID, validate that ID, run WGA, create a user account, have your system scanned for IP infringing programs.
Folks, it's all about control. Remember that XP Lite version they want to sell in third world countries? What would you like to bet the price is set at around the same cost-per-unit it will require to expand WPA into those foreign markets? Microsoft gets their global expansion for free.
Remember when they released Windows Media Player? I wondered why the heck would MS bother with a freebie clone of Winamp? Then the started packaging it will every copy of Windows and "upgraded" it to include the DRM laden WMA format and it all made sense. They had a secure media format to offer Hollywood on 97% of desktops. Brilliant.
If you extend the same scenario to WPA/WGA/(and the next vague acronym designed to make even talking about it confusing), you'll see that in the near future they will show software companies, music companies, and movies companies that, if they give Microsoft a cut of the profits, they can guarantee that their content will be locked up tight. On desktops where MS can revoke access to content at will. They tell the corporations, "Look, no more used record shops or second hand games stores. Everyone gets to rent your product and no one gets to share it!"
Look at Valve's Steam. You can buy a game with no packaging for full price that they can shut down remotely.
That's what WGA is. Stop 37 in the path towards the death of consumer ownership.
Me, I got off at Stop 24.
Regards,
Doornail
It's stop 37.
Decades back, manufactures shipped products with little paper warranty cards so consumers could fill out kinds of details and mail them in. This would give the manufacturers all kinds of useful information like, 'what age men buy our junk?' and 'how much liability would flamable seatcushions put us in?'
Then REALLY wanted this information so the tried requiring customers to return warranty cards or they wouldn't honor the repairs. Fortunately, the US courts smacked that down hard. Now, if we take a sip of coffee right here and think about today, you'll might see that corporations have found sneaky ways to exploit the fact that each of us has a two-way datastream inside of our homes.
Consider the transition:
DOS 1 through Windows 95: Just load the software.
Windows 98 - Windows 2003: Load the software and enter a product ID.
Windows XP - Load the software, enter a product ID, and validate that ID.
Windows XP SP2, Load the software, enter a product ID, validate that ID, run WGA.
Raise your hand if you think we're done expanding this list.
Maybe the next iteration will be:
Windows Vista - Load the software, enter a product ID, validate that ID, run WGA, create a user account.
Windows Vista 360 - Load the software, enter a product ID, validate that ID, run WGA, create a user account, have your system scanned for IP infringing programs.
Folks, it's all about control. Remember that XP Lite version they want to sell in third world countries? What would you like to bet the price is set at around the same cost-per-unit it will require to expand WPA into those foreign markets? Microsoft gets their global expansion for free.
Remember when they released Windows Media Player? I wondered why the heck would MS bother with a freebie clone of Winamp? Then the started packaging it will every copy of Windows and "upgraded" it to include the DRM laden WMA format and it all made sense. They had a secure media format to offer Hollywood on 97% of desktops. Brilliant.
If you extend the same scenario to WPA/WGA/(and the next vague acronym designed to make even talking about it confusing), you'll see that in the near future they will show software companies, music companies, and movies companies that, if they give Microsoft a cut of the profits, they can guarantee that their content will be locked up tight. On desktops where MS can revoke access to content at will. They tell the corporations, "Look, no more used record shops or second hand games stores. Everyone gets to rent your product and no one gets to share it!"
Look at Valve's Steam. You can buy a game with no packaging for full price that they can shut down remotely.
That's what WGA is. Stop 37 in the path towards the death of consumer ownership.
Me, I got off at Stop 24.
Regards,
Doornail
No, they'd do the logical thing and go after the virus propogators. Throw them in jail for a bit.
They're a corporation, of course they're there to protect themselves and their profit margin. :roll:
You buy the license to use the software. It's their software, they choose how it can be used. Don't like it? Buy consumer friendly software.
Quoting myself:
Kudos to yukichigai and Varun for taking the time to run with ball and explain everything that really shouldn't have needed an explanation. Although, there is one thing I have to agree we really can't do much about right now"
"You buy the license to use the software. It's their software, they choose how it can be used. Don't like it? Buy consumer friendly software."
I don't like it, but I understand it as it applies to all software including games.
Holy crap! 37,100+ posts!
Phil, WGA is another invasion of privacy whether anyone thinks so or not. How do you know M$ isn't getting other information from your PC and how do you know that they are? I would prefer to not give them more opportunities to begin with. WGA was never in my agreement to use SP1a when I bought it anyway. Oh, and I never said one-step away; I may have said other things that hinted at this though. Besides, it was en extreme hypothetical case and meant to make a point. Anyone that didn't understand that from the get-go is a moron.
doornail, yes it's about control and I want to control MY PC, not M$!
Just for the record, I'm behind hardware and software firewalls and I don't think me not getting Windows Updates for a month or two will have much effect on viruses on the net. Although, if I'm wrong I hope someone will please let me know.
"You buy the license to use the software. It's their software, they choose how it can be used. Don't like it? Buy consumer friendly software."
I don't like it, but I understand it as it applies to all software including games.
Holy crap! 37,100+ posts!
Phil, WGA is another invasion of privacy whether anyone thinks so or not. How do you know M$ isn't getting other information from your PC and how do you know that they are? I would prefer to not give them more opportunities to begin with. WGA was never in my agreement to use SP1a when I bought it anyway. Oh, and I never said one-step away; I may have said other things that hinted at this though. Besides, it was en extreme hypothetical case and meant to make a point. Anyone that didn't understand that from the get-go is a moron.
doornail, yes it's about control and I want to control MY PC, not M$!
Just for the record, I'm behind hardware and software firewalls and I don't think me not getting Windows Updates for a month or two will have much effect on viruses on the net. Although, if I'm wrong I hope someone will please let me know.
You make some good points, and I thank you for taking the time to make them.
I agree with this. Like I said above, I don't under stand why I can get critical updates through one avenue without validation (AU) and not through other avenues (WU/MU). It makes no sense. Whether it will really have a substantial effect on the security of Windows machines, I'm not sure. There is a huge button on WU that users can click on to enable AU. Keep in mind that the only OSs that require validation are XP and 2000 (client only, not server). So these are all systems that can run AU.
I still contend that it does protect consumers from being ripped off, as drag mentioned above. I'm not privvy to any financial data, but I would think any increase to Microsoft's bottom line through WGA would be negligible. Why? Because most customers who fail the WGA check will be eligible for a free license from Microsoft.
I hear this argument a lot, and its crap. Software that costs a couple bucks is pirated all the time.
Is $100 really an absurd price for Windows? If your wallet can't handle that, there are certainly other options out there, as n0c mentioned.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter