Vista - Paul Thurrott.... a software pirate.

"Mark D. VandenBeg" <mvan103@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ujJC$DZrGHA.4684@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
> "MICHAEL" <u158627_emr@dslr.net> wrote in message
> news:%23e8$D6YrGHA.4660@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...>
>> True. But just as with the whole DRM crap- this will do *nothing* to
>> stop the *real* software pirates. Nothing.
>>
>>
>> -Michael
>
> Not necessarily. If an individual downloads an MP3 and it stops working, that person likely
> will go download another one. Besides, it's a dollar. If the same person buys a computer
> from a retail store and then finds out their copy of Windows is not genuine, I imagine he or
> she would be angry enough to give the information to MSFT. If you notice, MSFT just sued 26
> different companies last week for this exact reason, possibly WGA helping the cause a little.
>
> I'm not advocating its use, either, and I am loathe to have it on my little network because
> it is by definition, spyware. But I at least am trying to keep an open enough mind to at
> least try to understand why they did this, even if I don't like it.

I'm sure WGA will catch some. However, those that are really responsible
for the mass of illegal software and those that use it the most, have already found
ways around WGA. As they always do and will continue to do.

Is catching "some" really worth the hassles? It will more likely cause significant
headaches for regular users, legitimate users. Many of which will just become
confused, frustrated, and pissed off. Numerous reports fill the net of WGA
mistakes.

You and I both know why they did this. A few extra dollars and simply- because
they can.


-Michael

Paul certainly doesn't sound like some blathering Microsoft basher.

I am a bit surprised by your statement, Colin. Frankly, disappointed.

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase...gallery_01.asp

<quote>

Overall, build 5472 looks solid. As with build 5456, I'll be using this as my sole OS going
forward, and it's interesting how much more possible it is to do this than was the case with
Beta 2, which performed horribly on my desktop and notebook systems. Things have definitely
taken a turn for the better. If I find out anything else interesting about this build, I'll
update this page. For now, however, I intend to just use the thing and see how it performs. So
far, so good.

--Paul Thurrott
July 17, 2006

</quote>

http://www.winsupersite.com/vista/



"Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
news:%23Snhl2UrGHA.3908@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I consider Paul Thurrott the Michael Moore of Windows journalism. I hear he's doing a
>documentary on Microsoft titled "Fahrenheit 1024x768."


> "Frank" <fb@nospamm.cmm> wrote in message news:e7jz5xUrGHA.3380@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> MICHAEL wrote:
>>> Paul Thurrott, one of the most important Microsoft advocates, has been bitten by Windows
>>> Genuine Advantage. http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?s...52221&from=rss
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/wga.asp
>>>
>>> I've found Microsoft's recent forays into customer relations with Windows Genuine Advantage
>>> (WGA) to be somewhat amusing. I mean, after all, Microsoft is a huge company just brimming
>>> with really smart people. How could they do something so silly?
>>> If you're not up on the WGA saga, here's a recap. Microsoft announced its Genuine Advantage
>>> software initiative in March 2006. It's designed as part of the company's wider assault on
>>> software piracy (another infamous part of this fight, Product Activation, won fame and
>>> fortune for Microsoft went XP was released in late 2001). The Genuine Advantage initiative
>>> is comprised of three parts: Education (customers should understand the risks of pirated
>>> software), Engineering (Microsoft's ongoing investment in anti-counterfeiting technologies
>>> and product features), and Enforcement (Microsoft is helping law enforcement agencies go
>>> after the world's worst software pirates).
>>>
>>> WGA is a component of the Engineering part of that unholy triumvirate. It's a bit of
>>> software that gets installed on Windows XP (it's part of Windows Vista right out of the
>>> gate, naturally) and is comprised of two components. The first, dubbed WGA Validation,
>>> determines whether the version of Windows on which its running is legitimate. The second
>>> component, WGA Notifications, displays annoying alerts on pirated Windows copies and
>>> provides a way for the user to pay for a legitimate copy of Windows.
>>>
>>> Aside from basic trust issues--Apple, for example, does not burden users with Product
>>> Activation or any similar anti-piracy technologies in its Mac OS X operating
>>> system--Microsoft made two major mistakes with WGA. The first was to silently post a beta
>>> version of the tool to Windows Update as a Critical Update, thus ensuring that it was
>>> quietly and underhandedly installed on hundreds of millions of customers' PCs: I mean,
>>> seriously. Is Microsoft honestly making guinea pigs out of its entire user base?
>>>
>>> The second mistake was that WGA Notifications was also "phoning home" information to
>>> Microsoft on a regular basis. That's right: Not only was the software secretly installed on
>>> your PC, but it then regularly contacted Microsoft servers and provided them with data
>>> about the instances of pirated and nonpirated software out there. Customers and security
>>> experts reacted with alarm, as well they should: Microsoft had literally shipped spyware to
>>> its customers. Microsoft, meanwhile, reacted as they often do when something like this
>>> happens: They made as if nothing serious had happened and acted shocked that anyone could
>>> think otherwise. So much for the Glasnost of the consent decree.
>>>
>>> After a few days of freaking out customers, Microsoft finally changed WGA in mid-June 2006
>>> so that it wouldn't phone home every single time a PC rebooted, which is how frequently it
>>> had been doing so. Now, WGA will still send back piracy data to Microsoft the first time it
>>> tests a system, and then it will only sporadically phone home after that. The company also
>>> released a set of instructions for disabling or removing the "pilot" version of WGA though
>>> Microsoft contends that the final version of the software, due soon, will not support these
>>> activities.
>>>
>>> After the dust had settled, sort of, I was still sort of curious what WGA looked like on a
>>> system that was suspected of being pirated. This week, I got my wish: A copy of Windows XP
>>> Media Center Edition 2005, installed in a virtual machine, came up with various WGA alerts
>>> after I installed a bunch of updates from Windows Update. Screenshots of this machine can
>>> be found below.
>>>
>>> You're probably wondering how it is that I'm running a pirated copy of Windows. It's a
>>> legitimate question.
>>>
>>> We're all friends here, right?
>>>
>>> Truthfully, I can only imagine what triggered these alerts. The software was installed to a
>>> VM a long time ago and archived on my server. I no doubt used a copy of XP MCE 2005 that I
>>> had received as part of my MSDN subscription. If the WGA alerts are to be believed, it's
>>> possible that Microsoft thinks I've installed this software on too many machines, though
>>> that seems unlikely to me. I can't really say.
>>>
>>> Anyway, that's what it looks like to be a suspected pirate. Like many people who will see
>>> these alerts, I don't believe I did anything wrong. I'm sure that's going to be a common
>>> refrain in this new era of untrusting software and companies. Ah well.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Please don't post any more links to trash dot.
>> THX
>> Frank
>
>

Before long, half of an OS will be anti-piracy software, and the rest will
be the OS. I think activation was okay although I'm not exactly wild about
it, but WGA is overkill. I think I mentioned this before, but I don't like
the feeling of having someone behind my back watching everything I do on my
computer. I just don't feel comfortable using an OS that phones home
everytime I boot my computer, and while now it only will do this sometimes
instead of all the time, I still don't feel trusted. All it would take is
some hacker to get in through the 'phoning home' or someone else's spyware
to monitor the phoning home and bingo, you have a disaster. It's probably
opening up more security holes. I agree with others that say that the
pirates will find a way around WGA and probably already have. They always
do - they have activation cracks and they'll probably have WGA cracks. Just
like illegal music downloading... There's always some way of getting music
and always will be no matter how far the RIAA goes to stop it.
"MICHAEL" <u158627_emr@dslr.net> wrote in message
news:eUD87OZrGHA.4892@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
> "Mark D. VandenBeg" <mvan103@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ujJC$DZrGHA.4684@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>
>> "MICHAEL" <u158627_emr@dslr.net> wrote in message
>> news:%23e8$D6YrGHA.4660@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...>
>>> True. But just as with the whole DRM crap- this will do *nothing* to
>>> stop the *real* software pirates. Nothing.
>>>
>>>
>>> -Michael
>>
>> Not necessarily. If an individual downloads an MP3 and it stops working,
>> that person likely will go download another one. Besides, it's a dollar.
>> If the same person buys a computer from a retail store and then finds out
>> their copy of Windows is not genuine, I imagine he or she would be angry
>> enough to give the information to MSFT. If you notice, MSFT just sued 26
>> different companies last week for this exact reason, possibly WGA helping
>> the cause a little.
>>
>> I'm not advocating its use, either, and I am loathe to have it on my
>> little network because it is by definition, spyware. But I at least am
>> trying to keep an open enough mind to at least try to understand why they
>> did this, even if I don't like it.
>
> I'm sure WGA will catch some. However, those that are really responsible
> for the mass of illegal software and those that use it the most, have
> already found
> ways around WGA. As they always do and will continue to do.
>
> Is catching "some" really worth the hassles? It will more likely cause
> significant
> headaches for regular users, legitimate users. Many of which will just
> become
> confused, frustrated, and pissed off. Numerous reports fill the net of
> WGA
> mistakes.
>
> You and I both know why they did this. A few extra dollars and simply-
> because
> they can.
>
>
> -Michael

I hear you, Travis.

Like you, I don't mind the activation. If I buy a piece of software,
I use the key that comes with it, and then activate it- leave me
the hell alone afterwards. The whole situation has really become
a bunch of invasive crap. With DRM and Microsoft's WGA,
people have allowed "fair use rights" to be stomped all over-
you get bent over and not so much as a hand job or a thank you.
Well, maybe a "thank you" and "please come again".

Microsoft is a cash cow. They have so much cash on hand
they will be buying back $40 billion in stock. Go to
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortu...500/full_list/
look at the list. Microsoft isn't the largest based on sales or
profit. But they have the best sales to profit ratios of any
company in this world. $40 billion in sales to make a profit
of $12 billion. Amazing. They generated more profit than
Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart needed $316 billion in sales to make
$11 billion in profit. There comes a point where Microsoft's
actions just really look like pure greed.

Lastly, the statement below seems like a joke.

"Ultimately, end users are free to choose which software they prefer to use."
-Microsoft

Windows Principles
Twelve Tenets to Promote Competition
July 2006
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/n...rinciples.mspx

1. Installation of any software. Computer manufacturers and customers are free to add any
software to PCs that run Windows. More broadly, every computer manufacturer and customer is
free to install and promote any operating system, any application, and any Web service on PCs
that run Windows. Ultimately, end users are free to choose which software they prefer to use.



-Michael


"Travis King" <Anonymous@none.com> wrote in message
news:edziSUbrGHA.4992@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Before long, half of an OS will be anti-piracy software, and the rest will be the OS. I
> think activation was okay although I'm not exactly wild about it, but WGA is overkill. I
> think I mentioned this before, but I don't like the feeling of having someone behind my back
> watching everything I do on my computer. I just don't feel comfortable using an OS that
> phones home everytime I boot my computer, and while now it only will do this sometimes
> instead of all the time, I still don't feel trusted. All it would take is some hacker to get
> in through the 'phoning home' or someone else's spyware to monitor the phoning home and
> bingo, you have a disaster. It's probably opening up more security holes. I agree with
> others that say that the pirates will find a way around WGA and probably already have. They
> always do - they have activation cracks and they'll probably have WGA cracks. Just like
> illegal music downloading... There's always some way of getting music and always will be no
> matter how far the RIAA goes to stop it.
> "MICHAEL" <u158627_emr@dslr.net> wrote in message
> news:eUD87OZrGHA.4892@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>
>> "Mark D. VandenBeg" <mvan103@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:ujJC$DZrGHA.4684@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>> "MICHAEL" <u158627_emr@dslr.net> wrote in message
>>> news:%23e8$D6YrGHA.4660@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...>
>>>> True. But just as with the whole DRM crap- this will do *nothing* to
>>>> stop the *real* software pirates. Nothing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Michael
>>>
>>> Not necessarily. If an individual downloads an MP3 and it stops working, that person
>>> likely will go download another one. Besides, it's a dollar. If the same person buys a
>>> computer from a retail store and then finds out their copy of Windows is not genuine, I
>>> imagine he or she would be angry enough to give the information to MSFT. If you notice,
>>> MSFT just sued 26 different companies last week for this exact reason, possibly WGA helping
>>> the cause a little.
>>>
>>> I'm not advocating its use, either, and I am loathe to have it on my little network because
>>> it is by definition, spyware. But I at least am trying to keep an open enough mind to at
>>> least try to understand why they did this, even if I don't like it.
>>
>> I'm sure WGA will catch some. However, those that are really responsible
>> for the mass of illegal software and those that use it the most, have already found
>> ways around WGA. As they always do and will continue to do.
>>
>> Is catching "some" really worth the hassles? It will more likely cause significant
>> headaches for regular users, legitimate users. Many of which will just become
>> confused, frustrated, and pissed off. Numerous reports fill the net of WGA
>> mistakes.
>>
>> You and I both know why they did this. A few extra dollars and simply- because
>> they can.
>>
>>
>> -Michael
>

I have to agree with Mark-we are licensed to use the software and they can
install most anything they want to thier product. We can complain but the
bottom line is why should pirated copies be allowed to get updates that we
paid a license for? I think the daily calls to home were extreme but my copy
is legal so why should I care?

"Mark D. VandenBeg" wrote:

>
> "MICHAEL" <u158627_emr@dslr.net> wrote in message
> news:%23S$JXvYrGHA.1848@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
> There is *nothing* critical about WGA.
>
>
> Depends on your perspective. From the Accounting folks in Redmond, this
> probably is a critical update...
>
>
>

daddy3 wrote:
> I have to agree with Mark-we are licensed to use the software and they can
> install most anything they want to thier product. We can complain but the
> bottom line is why should pirated copies be allowed to get updates that we
> paid a license for? I think the daily calls to home were extreme but my copy
> is legal so why should I care?
>
> "Mark D. VandenBeg" wrote:
>
>
>>"MICHAEL" <u158627_emr@dslr.net> wrote in message
>>news:%23S$JXvYrGHA.1848@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>
>> There is *nothing* critical about WGA.
>>
>>
>>Depends on your perspective. From the Accounting folks in Redmond, this
>>probably is a critical update...
>>
>>
>>
Yeah me too. So innocent people don't need an attorney right?
Frank

daddy3 wrote:
>> I have to agree with Mark-we are licensed to use the software and
>> they can install most anything they want to thier product. We can
>> complain but the bottom line is why should pirated copies be allowed
>> to get updates that we paid a license for? I think the daily calls
>> to home were extreme but my copy is legal so why should I care?
>>
>> "Mark D. VandenBeg" wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "MICHAEL" <u158627_emr@dslr.net> wrote in message
>>> news:%23S$JXvYrGHA.1848@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>> There is *nothing* critical about WGA.
>>>
>>>
>>> Depends on your perspective. From the Accounting folks in Redmond,
>>> this probably is a critical update...

Does Toyota require you make regular reports on the use of the car they sell
you? Does Double Day publishing require your IP address every time you open
a book they've sold you? Do you owe it to Microsoft or anyone else to submit
to regular seaches, checks, snitch reports and possible seizures? Are you
supposed to give up your freedom to WGA-N DRM DCMA and (soon AACS) and live
your life like a criminal on parole? Are the USA, Canada and Australia
supposed to be police state tyrannies or free countries? For the time being
you are still free to not care. But if things keep going the way they are
going you will not be free.

In Canada now (where I reside), a guy is going to jail for opinions he put
on a website. And now they discussing actually censoring sites from reaching
Canadians a la what the totalitarian government in China is doing:

http://www.forward.com/articles/8042

Bet you didn't know that.

We're are already heading for an Orwellian nightmare because we keep being
oblivious and not caring. If we don't stand vigilant, then we loose our
freedoms because there are many plenties of people who would take them away.

So sure WGA N is just one little thing and you don't need to care - and
that's what they always have you believe.

And sure a person can't care about everything. It's overwelming. But when
you've come to realize something is wrong and you just let your rights and
freedoms get pushed over without a whimper? That's not responsible
citizenship.

"Ground Cover" <ground@cover.internet> wrote in message
news:eo1Y%23amrGHA.1604@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
> Does Toyota require you make regular reports on the use of the car they
> sell
> you? Does Double Day publishing require your IP address every time you
> open
> a book they've sold you?

Not a direct comparison. Microsoft, to this day, has never sold a software
product, only a license to use the software according to an agreement, that
while long and mostly unread, does spell out the terms quite clearly.
Toyota and Double Day both sell you the actual product, and as far as I
know, do not limit the use of their respective products to specific
conditions in any similar type of agreement. Furthermore, I would assume
that Toyota takes significantly more steps than Microsoft ever has to ensure
that their product is not pirated and sold en masse. Imagine a plant
producing and selling fake Camry's, for example. Isn't happening, unless
you loosely consider Hyundai.

>Do you owe it to Microsoft or anyone else to submit
> to regular seaches, checks, snitch reports and possible seizures? Are you
> supposed to give up your freedom to WGA-N DRM DCMA and (soon AACS) and
> live
> your life like a criminal on parole? Are the USA, Canada and Australia
> supposed to be police state tyrannies or free countries? For the time
> being
> you are still free to not care. But if things keep going the way they are
> going you will not be free.
>
> In Canada now (where I reside), a guy is going to jail for opinions he put
> on a website. And now they discussing actually censoring sites from
> reaching
> Canadians a la what the totalitarian government in China is doing:
>
> http://www.forward.com/articles/8042
>
> Bet you didn't know that.
>
> We're are already heading for an Orwellian nightmare because we keep being
> oblivious and not caring. If we don't stand vigilant, then we loose our
> freedoms because there are many plenties of people who would take them
> away.
>
> So sure WGA N is just one little thing and you don't need to care - and
> that's what they always have you believe.
>
> And sure a person can't care about everything. It's overwelming. But when
> you've come to realize something is wrong and you just let your rights and
> freedoms get pushed over without a whimper? That's not responsible
> citizenship.
>
>

See my post on why Canada is, and has been for a long time, a socialist
country. But as far as I know, the government in place currently is an
elected body, so, if the majority of the people who are citizens wish to
change the policies, they have a route to follow.

I have also stated that I do not care for the WGA spyware in any fashion,
but, in order to use my Microsoft products that I have legally obtained, I
must abide by the conditions set forth by the EULA that I have agreed to.
If you feel that you are not able to or do not wish to abide by the same
agreements, then perhaps you should not be using the product.


--
Mark

My favourite so far: Unknown device has been correctly installed.

Let's forget about the slimy way Microsoft has handled
all of this. Let's forget about, for a moment, Microsoft
snuck beta software onto production machines. Let's
forget the critter is spyware that was phoning home every time
you farted. Let's forget Microsoft is rolling in the dough
even though they haven't had a major new product release
in awhile. Let's forget that the user should always have
final say on what software they prefer and want on their
system. Let's forget Microsoft even said the that in
their "Twelve Tenets".

Let's look at some results. Microsoft a few weeks back
reported that:

"80% of all WGA validation failures are due to unauthorized use of leaked
or stolen volume license keys."

I have no idea how they determine this. But, let's turn that
statement around.
20% of all Windows users who fail the WGA validation test are
*not* using leaked or stolen keys.
20% of millions and millions have been wrongly identified/accused
of having a pirated copy. Stop the press- that's a hell of lot of people.

That should be unacceptable in anyone's fuzzy math
calculations.

I am bothered that people actually try to defend such
nonsense and others just pooh, pooh it away as an
acceptable way to do business. Whether it's some
corporation or government, our rights don't get taken
away all at once- they use baby steps, they test the
waters of what people will tolerate. The only thing that
stops such erosion is when people become fed up and
speak out. Such an outcry stopped Sony and their rootkit.
Unfortunately, the later we wait the harder it is to push
back and the harder it is to undo the damage already
done.

If you think Microsoft's actions are not the same- you're
right- they're worse.

Corporations are in business to make money, fine.
But that doesn't mean we have to take whatever they
decide to dish out. As much as I love Microsoft products,
I'm not willing to just trust them to know what's best
for me, nor do I want them to be allowed to do whatever
they want just because they can.

I've said all I am going to say in this thread- if you folks
don't understand why you should be concerned and pissed
off, I can't help you. Just remain in the bent over position.

This is about principles. It seems sorely lacking in today's
business environment and the public just doesn't care.
That's a shame.

Read these.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=89
by Ed Bott

So what is the reason for WGA rejecting the other 20% of Windows licenses? ComputerWorld
apparently didn't ask, so I fired off an e-mail to Microsoft's PR agency, who passed along a
response from Cori Hartje, Director of Microsoft Genuine Software Initiative:

"While we will don't have specifics to share on other forms counterfeit installations, they
mostly result from activities such as various forms of tampering and unauthorized OEM
installations."

Yes, that's exactly what they wrote. Besides being woefully ungrammatical, it's also imprecise.
How many are caused by tampering? How many by unauthorized OEM installations? And what exactly
are those categories? Note that there's no admission that some of those failures might be false
positives.
Trying to pry answers out of Microsoft is difficult, because they refuse to grant interviews on
this subject. And taking one question at a time via e-mail, with a lag time of a day or more
between question and answer, is just insulting.

I'll keep beating on this stone wall for as long as I can stand it.


http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=98
by Ed Bott

"About 1 in 5 of the 300 million PCs that have run WGA validation fail."
Yow! By my calculations, that's 60 million people who've been informed by Microsoft that they're
running "non-genuine" copies of Windows.

After looking over this list, the numbers don't add up for me, and they certainly don't explain
why Microsoft is attacking this problem with such a vengeance.

Think about it: 60 million people have been hassled by Windows Genuine Validation. And for
what? The numbers don't add up.

continued.......


Take care,

Michael

"Frank" <fb@nospamm.cmm> wrote in message news:uLxlYkhrGHA.1604@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> daddy3 wrote:
>> I have to agree with Mark-we are licensed to use the software and they can install most
>> anything they want to thier product. We can complain but the bottom line is why should
>> pirated copies be allowed to get updates that we paid a license for? I think the daily
>> calls to home were extreme but my copy is legal so why should I care? "Mark D. VandenBeg"
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"MICHAEL" <u158627_emr@dslr.net> wrote in message
>>>news:%23S$JXvYrGHA.1848@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>> There is *nothing* critical about WGA.
>>>
>>>
>>>Depends on your perspective. From the Accounting folks in Redmond, this probably is a
>>>critical update...
>>>
>>>
> Yeah me too. So innocent people don't need an attorney right?
> Frank

"Mark D. VandenBerg" <mvan103REMOVE@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OioX6tmrGHA.4296@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> I have also stated that I do not care for the WGA spyware in any fashion, but, in order to
> use my Microsoft products that I have legally obtained, I must abide by the conditions set
> forth by the EULA that I have agreed to.

> If you feel that you are not able to or do not wish to abide by the same agreements, then
> perhaps you should not be using the product.

Or, speak up, speak out in hopes of changing things and maybe
making a positive difference. It may be futile, but I'd rather try
than lay down and just take it.


-Michael