Simple answer to the Majority of arguments, is if you use it illegally - don't complain if MS "disable" some of the features and give you the "Grace Period" to activate a legal (or most likely version with a newer crack in this case).

At the end of the day, the software is Licensed to the End Users, hence the name End User License Agreement not End User Software Usage Agreement for example - MS are well within their rights to "disable" some features if a pirated version of their software is detected.

And if you really want to use Vista, and "can't afford it", "don't want to buy it" or "just want to use it illegally for no apparent valid reason"... Download the KMS Server, Download a working Business RTM/Enterprise Vista ISO, and install it on a computer without internet access... or just disable windows updates... either that or look through each one manually and check it won't "disable" Microsoft's "features".

As for the Legal Users, yes it is a pain having to reactivate occasionally... but you have to live with it, if you want to use Microsoft's Software Legitimately.

Your comments on this are of course welcome ;)

Judging from this flamefest, I'm glad I'm sticking with my activation-free (and legal) copy of XP.

but this solution is totally outdated. both warez releases relying on RC1 registration files were nuked yesterday, reason: not working any longer. The KMS in connection with the Volume Vista edition is the only true solution

Until they block the KMS keys distributed with the package.

And then, of course, we'll probably be dealing with a KMS keyegen...

Personally, and call me paranoid but I have never and will never install a product with a legit key or without a crack. Same as very rarely will I use my real name or any real information online, and it will not be saved to my computer. I still buy my licenses and have the right to use the software.

Now, occasionally I'll break the rules a little. I have more then a dozen PC's and I don't know how Microsoft reasonably expects me, a person with the average US salary - well under 20k a year, who spends half of that on rent and utilities to spent nearly $500 on each PC for the operating system. Same for Office. I have to only be able to view word documents on one of my PC's? I can really use one at a time anyway, except for the occasional (once or twice a month at most?) time when I have a visitor over who I let use one of them for a moment. Usually they're a paying Microsoft customer too.

Until Microsoft becomes more reasonable with their licensing schemes and fair treatment of paying customers they will always have a very large percent of users (would rather be using it legitimately) pirating their software.

So how or why does a person with under 20k own 12 machines exactly? I make well over 60k and own 3, and yes, they're all legally provisioned with XP, 1 has home, 2 have Pro.

See this is what I don't understand....are people really b****ing about MS' licensing schemes? Or because it's getting more difficult to steal their product. As a paying customer, windows XP doesn't belong to you - the code isn't yours, nothing to do with the ideas or concept belong to you - in fact, you have paid to use the software, for the right to run it and use it ONLY. If you have paid to use it on a single machine and are using it on 50, then you're wrong. If you paid to use it on a single machine and use it on 2, you're still very wrong. The sooner people realize this, the better off everyone will be.

people like you are why MS think they can push consumers around like they do.
companies like MS are trying to take away our right to own a product.
is that what you want?

sorry, i find it sad when companies like MS won't sell you an os because they want control of the people who use it.

Funny i must have missed the "right to own" somewhere in the Bill of Rights. MS (and many others) sell the use of it's product to you, they don't sell the product. If you don't like it, don't buy it, how ****in hard is that? MS and no one else is taking away your rights, you a free to choose not to buy what they are selling. Sorry if that concept is too hard for a mindless MS basher like yourself to understand. Lemmings indeed, pot meet kettle.

Maybe they're pushing you around, but they're obviously not pushing me around. And I find it difficult to understand why some people decide to go ape s%it over things like this. You read the EULA (or are supposed to, anyway), you aggree to it, and then you complain out the wazoo when you don't follow the rules and trouble comes or simply at the thought of that situation.
If I thought MS was pushing me around - if I was unhappy with their rules, their product - guess what I'd do? Buy Linux or download it free or buy a Mac and use OsX....simple as that. I wouldn't pi$% and bash at the company at every chance I got, especially because they're protecting their own product from thieves and less ethically minded people who have no problem using an OS they didn't purchase in the first place. Not only that, but people even have the audacity to complain that their stolen/illegally installed or copied license of XP won't download updates from MS servers, WTF?! It's like walking into a best buy, stealing a mp3 player and then coming back pissed off because you didn't get the free remote control with purchase. Stealing is stealing, is stealing.
Personally, if I put hard work and millions of dollars into the development of software, I'd be just as upset if joe dirt decided he wanted it for free....and I'd find a way to make sure that if he got it, it wouldn't work too.

i'm sorry i can't help you.
but, if you don't see the inherent problems with current EULA practices, you are obviously either narrow minded or short sighted.

yea, must be me. Can't possibly be that your an idiot or anything. I mean seriously, why would any company want to protect it's IP from copyright violators and thieves, thats just absurd.

narrow minded it is then.

Don't take this the wrong way, for I agree with everything you've said. However, one interesting point is the mention of Mac OS X. I'm not really sure why anyone would believe that switching to an Apple OS would be a better solution with regards to license restrictions. I've read the EULAs for both OS X and Windows XP, and see no major differences between the two. One major difference in the operating systems themselves, though... at least Microsoft doesn't have nearly as many restrictions on the hardware you're allowed to install and run their OS on.

I'll take narrow minded over your utter stupidity any day of the week.

It is however, gratifying, that you simply don't have anything worthwhile to say and thus resort to pointless name calling to win your arguments like a child.

*Counts* 2 Pentium 2 Laptops (Thinkpad 600E), 1 Pentium 3 Laptop (Thinkpad T20), 1 Athlon 64 laptop (Gateway), 1 Core Duo Laptop (Thinkpad T60), 1 (Soon to be 2, I'm planning on another athlon x2 system so I have a 24/7 Linux only that I can s***o anytime away from home) 1 Pentium 4 Desktop (my second - newer one was stolen). A Pentium 3 hand-me-down from a friend that was going to through it out) My Original Pentium 166mhz Thinkpad 760, Unfortunately my Pentium 233mhz Compaq Armada 1500 series was stolen (during gym back in high school, door broken off the locker). That doesn't include any of the 486's and predecessors which I wouldn't want to run any recent MS-OS's on.

I think that brings the count up to 12. I don't make much but I try to fit in a new computer every year, a new laptop every 2. It helps that I always stay one step behind the latest tech so I can afford to always have a fairly modern system.

I'm also one of those who MS attempts to screw by trying to make windows not work when I upgrade my processor and video card every 6 months.
*looks over at stack of spare Pentium3 and 4 CPU's*
Theres a lot of us, and we can't imagine life any other way. Why do you think they had to revert back to a more XP-like license agreement? There would be huge amounts of people either not buying Vista, or more likely paying customers pirating the software even though its still used on only 1 machine, the one they bought it for.

Edit - There was a 3rd Pentium 2 600E, Forgot it got stomped on at H2K2. Currently is hooked up to an external monitor but works. Damn those things just accumulate like N64's, I'm not sure where they all came from.

Hey Yount, no I was just making a point. Like you know, if you don't like Ford, then buy a Honda, kinda thing. Don't steal the ford and then complain about how bad the security system is, or some crap.

lol, you're funny.
:-)

Even Microsoft's a** lickers in this thread repeatedly mention one thing: switch to Linux. It looks like Microsoft will truly "enjoy" the results of it's "anti-piracy" campaign.

Yes, as an alternative for those who find they can no longer "enjoy" Microsoft products illegally.

Well if it isn't mr "making a copy isn't a violation of law and therefore I feel free to screw people over their hard work". Been along time since I've seen your trolling around here. Nice to have you back.

I never said any of those things. You are a liar.

It's because they are tired of hearing people b****ing about Microsoft and not making a move to find other options. If they hate Microsoft so much it's time to make a move for the options, either sh*t or get off the toilet.

http://www.betanews.com/...s_Loses_Visa/1161197051

That isn't you? Funny, it's got your name on many of the posts claiming that making a copy to screw the copyright holder is ok and within your rights. Must be some OTHER Alexq huh?

I never said "making a copy isn't a violation of law", I said I think such laws are wrong and should be changed.

Similarly, and I never said "I feel free to screw people over their hard work", I said hard work by itself is neither a requirement nor a justification for compensation demands (willingly and explicitly entered contracts are).

You are either incapable of understanding the difference or a liar. Probably both.

Alexq:"If someone STEALS your BigWheel it is not OK.
If someone MAKES A COPY of your BigWheel then it is OK."

Alexq:"I believe I am within my rights when I make myself a copy of something my friend has (with his consent)."

LOL, squirm all you want, what you said is right there on that thread for everyone to read for themselves. If you want to find a liar, look no further then the nearest mirror.

I spent over five years staying one step ahead of MS and WGA. I got sick of it, although in the end I still was able to install IE7, Defender, WMP11 and the like. But when the price dropped to AUD$99 with a $27 upgrade to Vista Business in February, I took the plunge and became (finally) a genuine user. Do I feel better? Yeah! Maybe just a little. But more importantly, now I don't have to waste so much time and effort staying one step ahead, and THAT is worth every cent of $99.

If each OS release was around AUD$100 (US$80) from first release rather than "the fire sale" at the end of the OS's life, I think more would buy the genuine article rather than seek out that Bangkok or Bali special edition.

Hmm, I kind of agree with that. Personally if I ever would pay for a Windows OS (hypothetically since I never have never will) I would not exceed $30 and $40 for Vista (all editions). Even thats a little generous but hey, it's Christmas. :)

You could probably separate all the different types of "pirates" into several groups. I think the smallest group would be those extremely smart guys from various countries who love the challenge of screwing Microsoft over. These are the guys who crack the operating system, disable activation code, and so on. Then there is the larger group of people who simply can't afford to pay $200-400 for an operating system. Low income families and people from developing nations. The largest group is of course the guys who just don't want to pay for Windows when they can get it for free. There are others, but these three groups make up the majority of pirates. The problem here is that the people who "pirated" Windows XP, 2000, NT, 98, 95, 3.1 etc. are not going to suddenly start paying out the butt for Vista. It's simply not going to happen.

Just because Microsoft decided to put a lot more protection on Vista will make no difference. All they're doing is screwing OEMs, business users and others who always paid for Windows and will buy Vista anyway. There will be false alerts, legit keys black listed, and just a lot of hassle for legal owners of Vista. My point is that people who haven't paid for Windows at all up until now are not suddenly going to run out and start buying Vista, just because Microsoft stepped up their anti-piracy efforts. These people will either wait for a fully cracked version of Vista (and there WILL be one) or simply stick with their other pirated version of Windows, mostly likely XP.

Besides, most people are not that eager to jump into the next version of Windows anyway. According to most reviews on the net, Vista doesn't really offer many new things except some fancy new interface and a few new toys. Nothing to e-mail home about. Definitely nothing that warrants the high price tag.

That is a great true of facts post. There was no biasedness towards microsoft at all, good job. I usually go overboard and start calling microsoft the devil. But you know it depends on how strongly you feel about the subject.

Finally something that makes sense. I agree fully. Especially about the part that states this sh*t does in NO WAY warrant the price-tag. Anyway, that is SOO F*CKING true about people stealing keys from legit users! This is a major problem for Internet cafe's actually, who license Windows not because they want to (no one wants to of their own will, even if they think they do) but because they fear legal action since its a public business. It's too easy to grab keys and re-use them, I myself have got over 100 "genuine" XP Pro keys ready for use (and STILL run pirate windows) but keep them "just in case".

Hope the places around here upgrade to Vista soon (haha).

LOL this reminds me of all the silly music pirating threads that pop up. The complete lack of understanding for basic licensing and IP law is astounding.

NO, you don't "own" your OS you only own the right to use it.

Yes MS is within their rights to terminate access to the OS on your box if they find you haven't paid for it....how is this any different then a pay-for-access service (say a nice MMO) that shuts you off when you don't pay?

If you don't like MS policies on it, switch to Linux, BSD, Hell even a Mac (I imagine Apple EULA has the same restrictions but I haven't read it so *shrug*)

You are right, you don't own the code when you purchase the OS. But you do own that copy of the software. One can't copy the code and go sell it somewhere. But I'll do whatever I like to the copy I own if it's for my own use. What's next? Is MS going to say I can't use certain wallpaper?

Vista is not a service. It is a software product that is purchased. That being said, MS does have a right to go after people using the software that did not purchase it.

No you do NOT own the copy you think you purchased. You licensed it, big difference. Read the EULA, you only have a license to use the software, you retain no ownership over it what-so-ever.

Since you don't own it, you only licensed it, Microsoft is providing the use of it as a service to you. and just as any service, that can be shut off if you don't abide by the terms of the license...eg if you didn't pay for it you cant use it.

Maybe legal. Morally gray. Definitely unenforceable.

Morally gray? That's how most major commercial software is. You license it you don't own it, this isn't the purview of Microsoft alone. It most certainly is legal and enforceable.

Enforceable? Yeah, and Iraq is winnable too. Unless MS wants to hire a person to monitor each copy of its OS, it is NOT enforceable.

Um...well I suppose that depends on your definition of "enforceable". IMO it's still plenty enforceable and enforced when they shut the OS down on your box because its pirated. I'd call that enforcement. *shrug* your mileage may vary.

Sure it's enforceable...Microsoft has it's very own little virus that does the trick nicely. It's called.....oh what the acronym I'm looking for.....oh yeah WGA.

The problem one runs into when criticizing MS and its draconian DRM is being accused of being a pirate. I have no reasonable choice but to suffer with a EULA that assumes I'm a criminal. Yet I don't have to agree with it. Laws change. Maybe the DMCA will change. Probably not - but one can hope.

Be careful who you accuse of pirating software.

"how is this any different then a pay-for-access service (say a nice MMO) that shuts you off when you don't pay?"

they don't disable the software, just access to the servers.

"they don't disable the software, just access to the servers."

Which essentially disables the software, since not being able to access the content on the server will render the client useless.

not the same

It's plenty enforceable when you're greeted with a nice little message on the next reboot that states "You must activate this copy of Windows before you can log on. Do you wish to do this now?"

Care to explain?

A violation of a license agreement is a violation. Plain and simple. In most every scenario, a violation equals cancellation of service, by whatever methods were laid out in the agreement. The particular methods by which that is accomplished are inconsequential. The end result is the same... you are no longer entitled to use the software.

"A violation of a license agreement is a violation."

where did that come from?
this was about whether MS has a right to effect my hard drive without my say-so.

but anyway, what service is MS providing me?

ever heard of eqemu and swgemu?

I don't know if these are legal, but...

No, they're not.

MS doesn't touch your hard-drive.

Are you purposefully being dense?

Your hard-drive is fine. Install a new OS, or activate Windows with a proper license, and your fine.

They don't break your hardware.

mmmkay?

Google MS v. harmony Computers.

Enforced.

"Be careful who you accuse of pirating software."

I sure will, but if your referring to yourself, I never accused you of being a pirate, stop being so sensitive. What I said was, that if MS recognizes your OS as pirated then they have every right to disable your access to it. See the difference? I'm talking about the article and your talking about some personal affront for some reason. Not everything is about you personally.

Funny, calling it a virus. That's clever. Tell me...when was the last time a virus asked you if you agree to it doing what it does?

And your point is? Can you USE the installed software if you don't have access to the servers? Nope didn't think so. Disabling your OS shuts you off, it doesn't uninstall it for you.

"but anyway, what service is MS providing me?"

Sigh...

The use of your OS IS the service. As has already been said MULTIPLE times, you don't purchase the software you purchase a license to use it. Microsoft (and most other major software vendors for that matter, everyone seems to think this is just a Microsoft deal and it isn't) still retains ownership of the software. They are just allowing you to use it.

sigh...

the use of the OS is NOT a service, it's a sale.
i paid for the product, not a service.
but...believe what you want.

Read your EULA, you paid for the license not the product.

but...believe what you want.

check your local law regarding the subject.
it changes depending on what governing agency you are under. (even from state to state)
as i stated before:
EULA is not law!

"EULA is not law!"

No the EULA is not law your right, it is a contract which is covered by Contract Law. Laws may vary from state to state but contract law isn't all that dissimilar from each state. The end result is still the same.

-edit-
oops, double post.

"it is a contract which is covered by Contract Law"

you have proof of this?

Do i have proof that a contract is covered by contract law? make sense man, thats like asking is I have proof the sky is blue.

http://www.bitlaw.com/so...es/copyright/procd.html

C'mon man... all EULAs are governed by common laws of contracts. A EULA *is* a contract.

3. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS AND OWNERSHIP. Microsoft reserves all rights not expressly granted to you in this EULA. The Software is protected by copyright and other intellectual property laws and treaties. Microsoft or its suppliers own the title, copyright, and other intellectual property rights in the Software. The Software is licensed, not sold.

Microsoft Windows XP Help and Support Center is where it comes from...

"What does the End-User License Agreement do? Why should I read it?

Microsoft software is licensed to you, not sold. Under United States and international copyright laws, your right to install, copy and run Microsoft software is limited. The End-User License Agreement (EULA) contains all the rights and limitations that govern your use of Microsoft software. The EULA is a contract between you and Microsoft (or the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) if you acquired the software preinstalled on your computer system). You are required to accept the EULA in order to run Microsoft software. You should contact the software or computer reseller if you do not want to accept the EULA. Please note that your EULA does not by itself prove that you are legally licensed. The EULA is used as part of the process to determine whether you have genuine software that has been legally licensed.

Please read the EULA carefully, as you would any legal contract, so you understand your rights and your obligations, and so you understand the rights granted by the licensor. The EULA may limit your ability to make additional copies of the software, and may also grant you specific rights to utilize networks, transfer the software, or otherwise use the software. In addition, please note that under certain Microsoft volume licensing programs intended for businesses, you may have different rights and limitations with respect to the software than may be contained in the EULA supplied with the software. Please consult the agreements that govern such programs for complete information."

(For the umpteenth time...) Microsoft does not affect your hard drive, they affect their (not your) software when it is discovered that a violation of the EULA (breach of contract) has taken place.

If you are only granted permission to *use* the product only if certain conditions are agreed to and met by you, how is that not considered a service? It is not considered a sale of goods if transfer of ownership of the product in question never takes place. Sure, part of the price of the software may include the cost of packaging, distribution, and any included support documentation and the physical media itself, but the majority of the cost is for the license (privilege) to use the software.

You can argue this until your fingernails fall off on your keyboard if you prefer (which apparently you do), but like it or not, once you click on the "I Agree" button for a license agreement, you are bound to it, and voluntarily accept all consequences that may arise from violating it. Continued use of the software depends on you upholding your end of the deal.

"EULA is not law!"

Yeah, you're right... it's merely a legally-binding contract. Our mistake.

*sigh*

has an EULA case ever been brought to court? i'm pretty sure it hasn't. until that happens, anyone's guess is as good as anyone else's as to whether or not it's actually binding.

what about users such as myself that own a still-sealed legal copy of the XP cd, but choose to use the "pirated" variety because it's less of a headache? microsoft is driving legit customers to do such things by assuming everyone is a criminal.

Your using a modified version of their software. Thats a violation of the EULA. And really...less of a headache? Please thats just silly.

you have to know that anything coming from MS is going to be biased and directed towards their best intrests.

that doesn't mean that we as consumers don't have certain rights that MS might not disclose publicly.

it is not illegal for me to go against the EULA, but i can be held accountable for any damages or losses because of said action. it is also to remove accountability from the software company for any adverse or unwanted effects of their product.
in fact, a number of clauses in common EULA's contradict local laws and are therefore uninforcable.

i, at least, understand my rights regarding this issue. others seem to just follow blindly.

and for the umpteenth time, i don't care if you don't see MS changing files on my hard drive as an intrusion of my privacy, but it is. i don't care if they THINK they belong to them, they have NO right to conduct their own investigation on my personal property.

Yes, they have. Did you not see the above link as one example?

Some of the more common cases when the terms of a EULA has not been upheld is when the actual end-user was never presented with it (and therefore never agreed to it) in the first place. In those circumstances, the end-user was not held accountable for his or her actions.

it's not modified, it's xp pro corporate with no modifications other than SP2 and the various hotfixes.

i change hardware. a lot. i don't want to call them up and ask permission.

That would have to be some pretty significant hardware changes happening all the time. You'd probably be better served getting a version that does not require activation. I'd call MS about it. If your business is hardware testing they can hook you up. If not, then I'm afraid you'll have to live with the inconvenience of a 30 second phone call whenever you make such sweeping changes.

Oh for heaven's sake. Will everyone just put on your big girl panties and shut the hell up!

You know you'll eventually run Vista so quit your crying!

Key word being "eventually" here.

The only way Vista will touch any of my machines is after someone prys my keyboard and mouse from my cold, dead fingers.

but i have a ligit rc2 key.. is it looking for fake testing key's or instal key's. ( i know how the patch works) but it has to see a key somewhere

You do know that key is now dead right, at least for anything past post rc2. I think there was a single post for a rc2 build that you could get but that was it.

I have tried rtm, it wasn't much better then post rc2. In fact other then some sounds that werent available in rc2. I didnt see where the final touches came in at. all problems and issues with games etc were still evident. It was unusable, I had to switch back to xp. So until thid parties get on board with driver support and app support, then you might as well save your money. If you have an older game or hardware, if support isnt already build in vista by now. And you can't part with it, well look forward to learning how to part with it.

game support is a mess, including modern ones. Do some games work? yes but majority did not. So I think vista adoption will be very slow once people figure that out. Others wont notice or wont care and thats ok I guess.

It's amazing how many folks have apparently never read the license that comes with Windows.

yah, maybe that would open their eyes to the level of extortion they're subjected to.
then again, maybe we will continue to let monopolistic companies set policy for us.
before long we'll be living the life "they" want for us, and paying them for it to boot.

Sounds like you don't know what extortion means.

MS isn't forcing anyone to agree to their licensing.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who don't care what the EULA says.

Also there's some dispute over whether EULAs are even legal or not. When you pay money to buy a good or service there may be stipulations (IE an EULA) attached to it that YOU MUST AGREE TO WHEN MAKING THE PURCHASE. The argument here is that since EULAs are only presented to the user once the transaction has been long since finalized, they are null and void and have no legal constraint on the user since the user agreed to the terms they were presented with when the sale took place (ie none). I'm not saying this is true but it is at least an interesting argument.

I've read it and it's all bull s***. It doesn't get directly to the point. It's unenforceable cause yu have to be a lawer to understand it. If they want to tell me, Yes you can use Vista, no you can't redistribute it, yes you can do whatever you like with your system, no you can't remove WGA... then fine. But not that s*** that I can't understand.

"Extortion is a criminal offense, which occurs when a person obtains money, behaviour, or other goods and/or services from another by wrongfully threatening or inflicting harm to his person, reputation, or property. Euphemistically, refraining from doing harm is sometimes called protection."

...dude...welcome to life.
Haven't you ever heard that ignorance of the law is no excuse? Just because you aren't capable to understand the license out of stupidity or just sheer laziness doesn't matter one whit. It's still enforceable. Now when a lawyer can't detangle it for you...then you might have a case.

The boy can cut & paste.

Want a cookie?

I'm sure there working hard at coming up with a cure for stupidity. Hold tight, man. Some day...

Exactly, meaning MS is not extorting you. They don't send a guy to your house threatening to break your legs if you don't buy Vista and install it. They simply state that you cannot modify the code or give it to someone else to use. And if you are in violation of the agreement they don't come over and break your legs, the OS just stops working. It doesn't fry your hardware.

I like you PC tool!

Really? doesn't amaze me in the least.

what?

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/extorting

maybe you just don't get it.
:-(
...oh well.

LMAO...

Yeah, it's me...not you.

You'll believe anything so long as it gets ya free stuff, eh? And you're calling the honest folk lemmings.

Too funny...

"You'll believe anything so long as it gets ya free stuff, eh?"

what are you talking about?
what "free" stuff am i getting?

i didn't call honest folk lemmings, but i will call you one.

"keep following, lemming."

Your credibility is starting to dip into the negatives... :)

but lemmings are cute...
i thought i was being nice.
:-p

I'll give you that... they are kinda cute.

Finally, we agree on something. I'm happy now. I can move on. :)

Yeah...they really are.

http://www.xeye.org/1995-2000/LemmZoo.html

Don't use Windows update. Most of the security problems can easily be solved by using a good firewall and anti virus...... Plus, like with XP, you can get your patches and updates from elsewhere.

I never let Windows automatically install its updates and patches. I go through them before I allow it to install them and I have a legit copy of XP. I'll do the same for Vista when I buy my copy of it. Never trust Microsoft.

We are allowed to modify our system files if we desire. Its our system

But you didn't pay for the OS, so you're talking rubbish.

No, it's not. MS still holds the license, and you violate it when you break the activation mechanism. They have every right to bring it down.

"MS still holds the license"

yah, whatever.

"They have every right to bring it down."

when are people going to realize, "they" cannot enforce law. there is a chain of command to follow when enforcing laws. MS is the bottom link. MS cannot "damage" my computer in any way without warrant (whether given by me or the state).

They aren't damaging your computer, ignoramus. :p

They're disabling their (not your) software.

EULA's have recently held up in court as legal and well within a corporations rights to enforce.

Myself I think they have the U and L in EULA reversed...it should be ELUA. Why? because it basically says if you do this, this or this we'll end your license, effectively boning you like the little b**** you are.

Nope, you can't but they can screw with it all they want.

lmao

my (not their) hard drive.

think of it this way:

i own a store
a robber effectively robs my store
i find out where this robber lives

do i have the right to enter his house and take what is mine?

"do i have the right to enter his house and take what is mine?"

You do, if the robber had signed an agreement giving you that right at the time he robbed your store.

That is basically what you have done when you clicked on the "I Agree" button upon installation of the software.

"'they' cannot enforce law"

The law gives them the right to enforce it themselves by way of the EULA. They're not vigilantes...

"The law gives them the right"

what law?
MS has to follow the law too.

just because you know i stole something from you, doesn't give you the right to break laws to get it back.

my hard drive is my property, even if MS's property is contained within it.

lol,
a contract still doesn't allow the bearer to break the law.

quote:
"Microsoft may have some trouble if it tries to enforce its EULA terms in a court in Washington State - especially if that court is running a computer using Vista. You see, all software license agreements with the courts in Washington State contains a "no self-help code" warranty where the vendor warrants that there is no "back door, time bomb, drop dead device, or other software routine designed to disable a computer program automatically with the passage of time or under the positive control of a person other than a licensee of the Software"

keep following, lemming.

Your hard drive is fine, jackass. Install linux, it'll work just fine. They didn't *touch* your hardware.

Do you have a mental incapacity I should know about before we continue?

...and it is their right to disable that software, so long as it does not damage the hardware.

says who?
got proof on this, if you read about wash. state you'll find you're wrong.

insults won't win your argument.
you haven't proven you're right, and i still think you're an idiot.

Thats easy to get around really. The only circumstances where MS has stated they would shut you off is if they deemed a person had pirated the copy. Since pirating precludes the pirate ever having a license in the first place then the protection of the courts also doesn't apply to them.

"keep following, lemming."

Way to have a mature conversation. Good going.

*blink* he hasn't proven that disabling your OS doesn't touch the hardware? That seems rather self evident really.

maybe neither of you know how a computer works.
any change to software within the hard drive is a "physical" change.
i thought that was self-evident.

so...
it's ok for MS to break the law as long as i do it first? (according to MS)
good thinking.
-edit-
the ability to disable the OS without the purchasers ok is illegal. (in wash. state)
do you work for MS?

LOL are you seriously arguing that altering the magnetic direction of a few microscopic elements on your hard disk is damage to your computer? Good luck with that one in a court of law.

Huh? MS won't have broken any laws. What law would they have broken if you were never safe under the umbrella of the license to begin with? Good lord PC_Tool is right about you. Not only are you an insulting jerk, incapable of having a mature discussion but your either purposefully or sadly ignorant and stupid.

the back door is illegal.
what don't YOU get?

NO it isn't, you aren't covered under the laws protections since you STOLE it. What don't YOU get?

sorry if you find being called a lemming an insult.
it seems you are willing to follow with no will of your own.

who stole it?
i own my copies of windows.
bought, paid for.

"are you seriously arguing that altering the magnetic direction of a few microscopic elements on your hard disk is damage to your computer?"

yes.

Then you have nothing to worry about and MS wont shut off your access and therefore not have done anything "illegal".

Good luck, be sure to let us all know how much the judge laughs your a** out of the courthouse.

happened to you?
didn't think so.
are you a judge?
didn't think so.
stop pretending you know all about something you really know very little of.

Um yea, ok now your just getting absurd.

If by that you mean that I am willing to follow reason, reality and the rule of law then I guess your right. Guilty as charged, sorry for living in the real world *shrug*

You really are very dense.

You are not allowed to, but have the ability to. Big difference.

It's your system, but Microsoft's operating system.

stop being such a negative nancy.

you have no real point in these posts period except the governing fact that you enjoy an argument.

and to your upcoming retort -- bla bla bla.

You want to speak of being a lemming, when you've been either quoting or interpreting Mark Rasch's misguided views on Windows Vista Product Activation? (Yes, I've been a long-time reader of securityfocus.com)

They can't do this! Extortion!

Please... Even though he raises some good points on the matter, and gives interesting case law examples, the EULA does state that the software will stop working if certain conditions are not met.

To quote the very same article you seem to hold so dear (and for others who are not aware of it - http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423 ):

"But the Microsoft Vista EULA, like many other software license agreements, gives the owner of the software (remember that's Microsoft because you didn’t buy it, you just licensed it) the right of self-help. They have the right to unilaterally decide that you didn’t keep up your end of the contract, for example you didn’t properly register the product, you weren’t able to demonstrate that it was genuine, and so on, and therefore they have the right to shut you off or shut you down. So, what gives them the right? Apparently, the very contract that they now claim you violated."

By the way, even he admits that you don't own the software... how many people have to tell you that before you understand it?

Also, another quote from that same article regarding the court findings for the Franks & Sons, Inc. v. Information Solutions, Inc. 1988:

"Public policy favors the non-enforcement of abhorrent contracts. Here, without the knowledge of Plaintiff, Defendants have included a surprise in their product which chills the functioning of any business whose operation is a slave to the computer. If the Plaintiff had known about this device at the time it entered into the contract with the Defendant then the result would be different. Here it would be unconscionable for the Court to give credence to this economic duress."

Basically, the "drop dead" code was not disclosed (likewise in almost every other case example he mentioned as well). In Vista, it states that the operating system will stop functioning upon violation of the agreement. Therefore, upon reading and agreeing to the EULA, the customer is informed.

Mark Rasch?

i was just pulling a quote about how EULA's can contradict local law.

but, it is nice to see other people feel the same way i do.
maybe i should start reading this serurity focus site.
thx :-)

"If by that you mean that I am willing to follow reason, reality and the rule of law then I guess your right."

it was more about thinking for yourself, and not letting others take advantage of you, but...ok.
i guess if you just keep following the rules others set for you, you can't go wrong eh?

Yea MS is really taking advantage of me when I CHOOSE to buy their product and CHOOSE to accept their contract knowing full well what can happen if I don't abide by it and then shockingly I CHOOSE to abide by it. How terribly mindless of me to make choices for myself.

"i guess if you just keep following the rules others set for you, you can't go wrong eh?"

That's generally how one stays out of prison and civil suits genius. You CHOOSE to sign a contract and you abide by it or you pay the consequences. What's next, you don't like local law enforcement telling you not to steal bread from the store so your going to call everyone who doesn't steal bread "lemmings" for following the law? You've really gone beyond ignorant and into the realm of the truly stupid.

Laughing my a** off.

Too funny.

Sorry, bud, the drive is still functional. Again, you don't own the bits. You're just too dense to see the difference.

I seriously thought you were more intelligent than that. My bad...

Care to point out the case in question, are you going to pull a "spongy-poo" here and pretend it's common knowledge so you don't actually have to prove anything?

Wow, some kiddies never let go of a grudge. At least spell the name right!

i may not have a right to the specific arrangement of bits, but they're still mine if they reside on my computer.

if i create a product that infringes on one of your copyrights, you can't just come and take it from me. but you think MS can?

Ouch...still sore, huh?

"you don't like local law enforcement telling you not to steal bread from the store so your going to call everyone who doesn't steal bread "lemmings" for following the law?"

lets stay on topic eh.

this isn't about the govenment setting laws, it's about software companies trying to create their own set of laws for their product.

MS and others are taking advantage of the fact that 90% of users won't even read the eula, never mind understand it.

but they're still mine if they reside on my computer.


No, they're not, the bits are property, property you have licensed, but property that nonetheless, belongs to someone else. But I'm repeating myself. Like talking to a wall, this is as pointless.

if i create a product that infringes on one of your copyrights, you can't just come and take it from me.

I can sure as hell stop you from using *my* product and seek legal action to stop the production / use of yours.

but you think MS can?

Yep.

;) My bad. I'll fix that.

"lets stay on topic eh."

Apparently the concept of an analogy isn't in your vocabulary.

"it's about software companies trying to create their own set of laws for their product."

No it's about companies creating contracts for you to abide by in order to use their product, a concept which still seems to elude you.

"MS and others are taking advantage of the fact that 90% of users won't even read the eula, never mind understand it."

Welcome to corporate USA, whats your point? If your too damn lazy or stupid to read the contracts you agree to that is hardly the companies fault.

oops...wrong thread.

"EULA's have recently held up in court as legal and well within a corporations rights to enforce."

That's pretty much all there is...and if you don't like it, get the law changed or don't rent the software.

Microsoft may have a right to prevent you getting updates, but if you choose to modify files on your own computer they should not (and perhaps do not) have a right to disable your PC.

Um, it's their OS, you violated the license. They have every right.

"it's their OS"

no, it's mine, i bought it.
look up the law regarding purchasing merchandise.
they "sell" me the disc...it's mine. (realizing there are still laws about the uses of any product, ie. you can't legally stab someone with a knife. as it pertains to software, you can't legally copy and sell it if it's copyrighted)
but i still own what i purchased...a disc with information on it.

it's mine, i bought it.

No, you didn't. Reality sucks, eh?

If you don't like licensing software, don't do it. Run Linux.

But claiming you own your copy windows is about as stupid and uninformed as you can get.

As for the disc...great. It's yours. scratch it, burn it, make a poster out of it. The software or data *on* that disc, however, is *not* yours.

Why is it so terribly hard for MS bashers to follow that simple line of logic? Physical media = physical and covered by those laws. IP on the disc is not, and therefore covered by separate laws.

It's really quite simple.

If I don't own it, I shouldn't have to pay for it.

I can modify any file on my computer, unresticted. Its my computer. Or are you telling me Toshiba owns my computer and I just rent it?

you'll agree to about anything to get what you want, won't you?
must be a simple life.

meh,
your loss.
:-p

They do not disable your PC. They disable their software. It's just unfortunate that at that particular point in time, proper operation of your PC relies on Windows working properly. You are free to do whatever you want with your PC at that point... reinstall Windows, switch to Linux, try any number of live CD OSes.

If I were getting away with using a pirated copy of Photoshop and it decided to no longer function, I'd probably try a different image editing program, or simply break down and purchase Photoshop (if it were decided that I underestimated how much I relied on it and couldn't live without it). Why should the operating system be any different?

If you've installed the software legitimately, in less than 5 minutes you're back up and running if reactivation issues arise. I know, I have to to do it approximately 4-5 times a week on customer's PCs at my shop. If you're using a "copy obtained by questionable methods", you've been using your PC on borrowed time and should have seen this coming anyway.

Now, be honest...

Has there ever been one copy of commercial software that you have not installed because there was something in the EULA that you did not agree with?

EULAs are, for the most part, considered necessary evils. There have been countless occasions when I did not agree with the terms laid out in the license agreement, yet my own desire (or need) to use the particular application outweighed any issues I had against the terms of using it.

It doesn't just apply to commercial software either. The terms attached to open source software are almost equally restrictive, just in different ways. You have more freedom to do what you want with the software, but there are still rules that state how you can do it.

"Has there ever been one copy of commercial software that you have not installed because there was something in the EULA that you did not agree with?"

no

i may click it, but i sure don't agree with it, and whether i follow it or not will be my choice.

restricting my use of something they sell to me is ridiculous. as long as there are no laws preventing me from action, i'll do what i please with it.

"In the US, the first-sale doctrine, Softman v. Adobe [1] and Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc. ruled that software sales are purchases, not licenses, and resale, including unbundling, is lawful regardless of a contractual prohibition."

PC-Tool wrote : "As for the disc...great. It's yours. scratch it, burn it, make a poster out of it. The software or data *on* that disc, however, is *not* yours."

This is exactly why I use pirated copies of MS products. If i pay for it and it's still not mine, ok, then i opt for stealing, as they call it, I may still not have the right to own it but at least i didn't loose any money on it.

It's high time MS realises that if they would spend all the money that goes to anti pirating efforts on developing a good running o/s, people would automatically buy it to support the makers of a good product. Instead they have been bothering the honest people who pay for their os. Or do they really think it's that much trouble to run xp illegally with updates? And while it may not yet be the case with vista, it'll no doubt happen.

...and I can quote case;law as well.

Microsoft Vs. Harmony Computers.

That case ruled that MS EULA *was* enforceable. That sets precedent for any new case.

You mean does following laws, and being an honest citizen make my life easier?

Why, yes. Yes, it does. Not to my loss, but to my benefit.

I got no worries, mate. I'm legit. Makes life a *lot* easier.

Ever rented anything? Ever leased anything?

Give me a break.

"It's high time MS realises that if they would spend all the money that goes to anti pirating efforts on developing a good running o/s, people would automatically buy it to support the makers of a good product"

that is just such utter BS. Anytime the public at large can get something for free they will do so. Look no further then what happened to the open source NUnit project to see what happens when you give good software away and rely on peoples good intentions to provide donations. They don't happen.

while interesting in and of themselves while pertaining to EULA presentation and acceptance they are unfortunately irrelevant to the topic at hand.

The corner stone of those cases was around first-sale doctrine and the courts deemed that since the defendants had not actually installed the software and thus never been either presented with nor accepted the EULA, that the EULA was unenforceable in those circumstances. The topic here that everyone is getting so pissy about is whether MS has the right to shut off your OS based upon the EULA. Since you accept the EULA the first time you boot your computer then you are, unlike the defendants in your quoted cases, falling under it's prohibitions. You CAN simply not agree when you start the computer and choose to install Linux or BSD, but if you accept you have to abide by the agreement or be subjected to whatever enforcement it outlines, such as blocking access to it.

Still, those were interesting cases you quoted. They don't apply here, but they pose ongoing problems for vendors unless another presentation mechanism is put together.

"as long as there are no laws preventing me from action, i'll do what i please with it."

But there are. Contract Law. You agreed to the contract (the EULA) when you clicked the button.

"i may click it, but i sure don't agree with it, and whether i follow it or not will be my choice."

By agreeing to the terms of the EULA, you've already made your choice. If you later choose to disagree with any of the terms of that agreement and do something intentionally to violate the terms of that agreement, then they (Microsoft) choose to take any actions set forth in the legally-binding contract you knowingly consented to in the first place.

There is absolutely nothing preventing you from circumventing or ignoring any of the terms in that agreement. However, when you say "I don't like it, but okay..." upon clicking the 'I Agree' button, *you're* giving them the right to enforce it, not "the law". The law will merely be on their side when it's time to enforce it, and you have a problem with it and try to dispute it.

Free will ain't all it's cracked up to be sometimes, eh?

There needs to be some exceptions to this rule though. Certain people simply seem incapable of comprehending what the phrase "I agree" means. For example, "The Man" himself seems to think "I agree" means something completely different than the English translation.

trouble comprehending?
maybe you didn't read the post.
says i own the software.
regardless of contract.

No they don't, you might want to actually try reading the legal cases and not just shooting from the hip.

What I have to ask is why anyone would waste their time cracking the turd that is Vista.

Why not?

cause it's crap?

Seriously, I choose Windows XP or non-windows.

Big deal. So what if YOU would choose XP over Vista? No one gives a monkeys.

Why does Microsoft continue to fight software piracy, when they are the inventors of software piracy?

I can't believe Microsoft has the audacity to continue fighting Vista piracy when they're charging such a high price for Vista in the first place.

Well, their own greed will lead to their demise.

What is the price? I haven't actually done any looking in to it.

I've always found previous versions to be pretty reasonable considering the use you get out of it.

My scale - Whats anything end up costing per hour? Movie - $5-6, Good 360 Game = $1-2, Round of Golf = $10-30+ -- Its always interesting to see what people are willing to complain about considering the cost of other things when put in perspective. Vista likely would end up costing cents per hour used at the end of its life.

"Vista likely would end up costing cents per hour used at the end of its life."

Did ya forget all the costs for the meds for the headaches that it has caused you and costs for other programs to get it to run right or the costs to have microsofts tech support to help you. In the long run, it is gonna cost more than cents per hour. Win 3.1 with norton destop was the best thing ever.

Vista is the most stable operating system ever released. Unix and Linux don't even come close.

Well if you knew how to use Windows and take care of it, then you wouldn't have to worry about all that.

Oh? Maybe you'd like to explain the crash I continued to get in the freely release RC2. During the installer.

Windows can never live up to Unix, Linux and Mac. (All based on the same system I believe.)

Vista is the same NT-family OS, with all the same troubles. To fix some of them you have to rebuild system completely. "Deffective by design", that's it.

Cos your machine is crap?

Or maybe cos it's not a "final build".

Take your pick.

Idiot.

"Inventors of software piracy"? Do you really look at what you are typing before you submit? Cos you really haven't a clue, have you?

God there are some real idiots on this page.

Windows Vista is damn near a rewrite of the 2003 Server code. The 2003 Server code is damn near a rewrite of the 2000 Server code.

Care to take a wild stab in the dark as to how much of "NT" still exists in the code?

For every person that has a legit key, someone puts it out on the net and it becomes a non legit key. Therefore someone is getting screwed that is legit.

The only reason microsoft is a power house it is today is because people pirated their software all the time back in the day. Remember back in windows 98 days and even xp still. That was before the invention that is p2p. People gave copies to their buddies and family members etc. That drove them insane no doubt. So they introduced xp with activation. That didnt work so well because of corporate keys. Then when they rolled out ie7 and all those new progams that require validation, there are cracks right now on the web. Just do a google search for ie7 crack. Now with that people have no tie downs once again.

The thing microsoft needs to start to realize is that they are not as smart as they think they are. The industry is huge, there are people out there that are a heck of a lot smarter then ms's developers and programmers are. You are trying to controlt he weather basically and it can't be. So no matter how much time, energy and money they throw at piracy. In the end it will cost them more to fight it then it would to embrace it. Linux somehow survives and gets better all the time. Imagine if Microsoft followed the same path. We would be on no build 50 of windows instead of 6. Features that microsoft can't seem to bring to light will be done in a fraction of the time.

I mean this vista activation stuf has been in development for years. Trying to find ways to prevent hackers from breaking it. But what do you know, I can guarentee on jan 30, vista will be sold and you will find 25k links on how to break the activation not to mention an unlimited number of downloads via p2p sites.

So does microsoft lose money? I dont know, I doubt it because for some reason the industry believes if someone can't pirate it. They will buy it. Therefore for their little formulas to figure out how much money they lose a year to piracy is wishful thinking. That is just plain not true. Someone is buying windows xp or windows in general. It's typicall oem's. They are the primary drivers of windows and of the industry. People who build their own computers will typicall buy oem or have a pirated copy. They are smart enough to figure out where to get it or have buddies that do.

So point is, make piracy possible for vista, if it is impossible. A whole lot less people will be using it. People will either stick with what they can use, or they will go to a alternative. Microsoft has to realize this. Therefore they make it difficult but not impossible or like I said before, others are just as smart or smarter.

My computer is fine.

RCs are stable

Idiot

"RCs are stable"

Good lord you don't really believe that do you? RC = release CANDIDATE.

Windows Vista Ultimate, the version which has all the features is $399 USD. I wouldn't call that reasonable at all. We have 5 computers in this house. Do they really expect us to pay $2000 just for the operating systems on these computers?

Adobe products cost that much, amongst other business applications. It takes millions to research and code these programs. They aren't going to give it away for free because you don't want to pay.

Then don't post the key on the net. You are contributing to piracy at that point. Though you yourself may own a legit copy you still violate the EULA by letting other people use your legit key without paying for their own.

which means "as far as we can tell, the damn thing's ready for release. if we don't find big problems within a couple of days/weeks, we're shipping this code".

key words being "as far as we can tell". If they considered it free of major bugs then it would be called release and shipped. But software vendors aren't stupid and they know that large bugs likely exist, hence it's a candidate until such time as they track down the remaining big ones and either fix them of figure out how to fix them quickly with an update.

RC releases should never EVER be considered the same as released and shipped software.

well, the final RC generally is the version that's released and shipped. ;]

True, but no one knows that the current RC is the final RC until the final release is released... finally.

...or something.

Not true at all, most software is still in development and testing right up until it's sent to the presses. That's one of the reasons why we see so many products that offer patches the same day they are released these days. They didn't get fixes in for gold so they made a patch for release day instead.

Tennis anyone?

I support Microsoft.

Let the flaming begin.

it's just like a shop posting barbwire, watch towers, armed guards, security guards (one per customer), dogs, mine fields ...

eventually the 'protection' will get so much that the customer will just not bother

and the pirates will always find a way

Good point, since it only invites the challenge and heightens the reward for those who crack it. Remember "Bring 'em on!/Mission accomplished" Bush? Same thing, and he's now surrending and on the run, frozen in his inability to 'decide' what he wants to do. Microsoft could cure all this if they'd educate the public more on the effects of piracy (worldwide) and then offer all Vista copies for $100 or less.

Nah-gawna-hapn.

Pathetic? I'll TELL you what's pathetic. Waiting *5* years for this f*cking OS. Way too little, way too late. But that's not the really pathetic part, that distinction is reserved for the fact that 3 out of those 5 years was spent "perfecting" this MONSTROSITY of product activation.

I hope the Chinese REALLY PUMMEL MS this year. I mean it's a long shot but really, my heart and soul is really with our chinky eyed brothers in 2007 for releasing a Vista keygen or bypass technique that is SO DEVASTATING it will leave MS crapgineers puzzled, baffled, confused and in a state of utter humiliation of years of work down the toilet in a mere 6 months.

In fact, I hope that this new activation scheme winds up not even "mitigating" piracy. And the look on those faces will be priceless.

Vista isn't worth Pirating.

I would never spend a dime of my own money, nor a second of my life wasted on getting this thing working.

If others want to pay me to do so, then so be it.

"chinky eyed brothers"
Now THATS pathetic.
I'm not Asian but you are one racist SOB.

You really chat rubbish don't you? What's pathetic is your rambling about the supposed 5 year wait. Who cares?

Idiot.

Learn English dimwit. Then you may attempt to properly insult me when your intelligence exceeds the score number in your reply.

You remind me of Bush with that utterly baseless, mentally retarded and infinitely useless paranoid observation.

Amen brother.

I don't think MS will have much success. Most of these pirates are smart enough not to use Windows Update on their cracked installs. As long as there are other ways of downloading the patches these pirates won't be affected (by this).

MS will likely eliminate casual pirating but these hardcore hackers will always find a loophole. And these users don't represent many sales. They just like the challenge.

Microsoft should require product validation for all updates including critical updates on both WinXP and Vista even if you manually download the updates individually from Microsoft's website.

People who are knowingly using pirated copies of Windows XP or Vista certainly don't need any official Microsoft patches or updates.

Maybe you'd like to tell me what those of us that legally bought XP, that get effected by the system, should do?

Call MS. Installation support is free. I recently dealt with an installation issue regarding activation. They could not solve the issue on first call since it was after hours, but *they* called *me* back the next day.

microsoft support costs 45 AUD or something. Or at least it did when I tried during 95's reign.

http://support.microsoft...id=3219&gprid=37013

"2 support request(s) submitted online or by a phone call are included at no charge. Unlimited installation support is available by phone at no charge."

Thank you.

I have no problem with MS protecting its property.

However, the company has long since passed the point where it inconveniences legal customers.

For that alone, I hope the pirates teach it a long hard lesson. And they will: this is an ever-losing game for software vendors.

ALL software vendors should take note. Yes, sales will be lost but quite frankly, that's the cost of doing business and at the end of the day they'll make money anyway from those of us who DO pay for our software. However, the ever more Draconian measures of protection will continue to cause an ever-mounting backlash from legal customers who were inconvenienced by them.

DRM has not, does not and never ever will work.

And it's an ever-mounting always pointless expenditure that unfortunately WILL be passed on to the hapless legal consumer.

Vendors need to deal with that inescapable and inexorable fact of life.

Consumers should also learn to to reject it.

What does this article have to do with "DRM"? I think you are confusing DRM (Digital Rights Management) with Piracy.

Even bill gates notes that DRM is flawed:
http://www.techcrunch.co...es-on-the-future-of-drm/

WGA is a direct form of DRM. MS is using DRM to protect it's license to the Operating System.

What exactly do you think the generic term for anti-piracy copy protection is?

Honestly, show me the numbers or quit talking out of your ass.

This does *nothing* to inconvenience legit users. The *few* anecdotal responses imply a less than 1% failure rate for WGA. If you have numbers greater than that that you can actually back up with FACT, please do so.

Unless of course, you have nothing but hearsay and FUD, which is, I suspect, the case.

Yeah, I'm wondering how it is an issue for legit owners.

I'm an IT consultant and I have yet to see any systems ever have a problem thats been caused by this. Worst case, on a reinstall or hardware change, I've had to call to manually reactivate.

Hmmm, now who would have those numbers you want PCTOOL, who? Oh, it's Microsoft! Guess what — they ain't talking. Ask them yourself and see what answer they give you, or are you afraid?

WGA is not a bad effort to protect their investment. From experience though I don't believe there is zero inconvenience with this program.

The reason is this. When you re-install the OS a second time on the same PC AFTER modifying the Hardware (CPU/Videocard/Motherboard) this may generate a new hardware profile with the key... this would not match what MS has on their validation servers.... the result is having to call up MS and attempt to get it sorted out. This is an INCONVENIENCE and quite annoying. XP has lasted over 6 years... How many motherboards/CPUs/graphic cards etc have I been through in this time... quite a few, at least 3 motherboards even more CPU's. This trend is growing too with cheaper hardware and more people building or customizing their hardware. I bought XP in 2000 never use it though... have always had better user friendliness from my (no activation required) Volume license edition... (bar the WGA upgrades that are not critical).

This trend will continue with Vista if the deal is the same.

Any number of companies could easily gather that information. Many of them have a strong dislike for MS. Wonder why they haven't done it and are instead using FUD?

Because the problem just doesn't exist.

Good points. let me ask:

How many folks bought the retail version of the OS? Ya know...the one that can be installed on more than one PC?

I ask because the scenario you depict applies only to them. A motherboard swap will generally snuff an OEM copy and it should come as no surprise when it fails to activate.

Most folks simply buy a new computer or stick with what they have making only minor upgrades such as HDD, RAM, or vid card. These should not trigger reactivation.

So what does it boil down to?

That less than 1% again. It's not perfect, nothing ever is, but the MS bashers are trying to make a big deal out of what amounts to damn near nothing.

Yeah you're probably right... I guess a lot of people still do actually buy pre-built machines and stick with them with only minor upgrades during the life of the PC... Being an IT guy (like most others who visit this site) I take it for granted that everyone just builds their PCs... still, even at roughly 1% with the tens of millions of copies MS intend to sell I'd expect MS to come up with a better system for vista for subsequent activation requests. Hope they improve it a little over the XP system.

Yeah, I bought an OEM license of XP and made the mistake of activating it right away on a new build. The motherboard's onboard NIC burnt out after a week. Two motherboard exchanges and finally a different model replacement got the system up and running again; but windows wouldn't activate. I've installed maybe 3 times since then. The first two I had to call MS support (for free) and spend probably 5 minutes on the phone each time explaining what happened, the third time it recognized the hardware and activated just fine. (I wouldn't be surprised if they updated the activation database after they saw the original hadn't phoned home for over a year. So for people whining about phoning home, there is a good result from it.)

I've changed almost every piece of hardware in my computer since then except mobo and a DVD-ROM and only had to reactivate once (outside of installs) when I updated a DVD burner's firmware. I thought it was odd; but I am guessing my key was on some sort of probation. I kinda look at it like a credit card company contacting you when they see suspicious activity on your card.

Keep in mind this was all on an OEM copy, not retail and not volume licensing.

In the same amount of time (or less) than it takes to install a new video card and drivers, a call to Microsoft's toll-free number is over and done with in about 5 minutes... shiny new activation and all.

"Is this your first time activating this software?"
"Is this a retail copy or one that came with your computer?"
"How many computers is the software installed on?"

Minor annoyance yes, but not the major life-altering inconvenience that most make it out to be... no invasive probing of personal family medical history. Combined with the extremely low frequency at which reactivation by telephone even needs to take place on any ONE computer, I'd say Microsoft has a fairly decent method in place for determining authenticity.

Heh...in the US, it's even easier. Dial the number, follow the prompts (I believe it's 2 numbers you have to hit), and enter in the code on your activation screen.

Couldn't really be much easier...unless there are other problems, like a bad disc.

Is Kentucky not part of the US anymore? Why wasn't I notified? :)

Made an assumption because this was how I got in last week.

Perhaps they've changed it?

No comment, btw, on whether Kentucky should or shouldn't count. :p

"When the copy is detected, Microsoft will alert the user, and then give them 30 days to activate the software"

and;

"users will have 30 days to reactivate their copies using a legitimate product key."

Ok, so 30 days from today (December 14) is about/around January 14. Isn't the Vista software only being made available to the general public on January 30th?

What solution does Microsoft provide to those few "extreme-early adopters" who had turned "pirate" while waiting for legit versions of Vista to be made public? I guess a 15 day cool-off period between Vista usage is their solution? (Jan 15 through 30th ...while legitimate activation is *UNAVAILABLE*)

Their tough luck for using a pirate version.

It'll be beaten. As ALL copy protection efforts will inevitably be beaten.

Period.

As I said, a losing battle.

That's like saying they shouldn't fix security holes, because... obviously more holes will be found.

DUH.... you fix, because it's the right thing to do.

LOL wait a minute...you're pirating a copy of Vista...before the product is even available to end users (it's already available for companies), and then you complain about getting "screwed over"? That's hillarious...

"I know I stole this pre-production car sir!! But you can't just take it away from me, you gotta at least let me drive it till it's released to the public!!"

Microsoft do the right thing eh...in what Utopian world do you live?

The hackers must be in it for the challenge alone because I can't imagine anyone actually wanting to use Vista, even for free.

Yea.. but you can crack any software. I doubt Microsoft is gonna just give up, they'll just make it harder and harder for piracy addicts

(like the people who have been responding to this article)

Yeah.....I'm just not going to use Vista.

My next computer will be a Mac. Haha!

So if you cant use Vista illegally then your going to use a Mac?

How pathetic.

As long as you buy Vista, you shouldn't have to worry about this. Are you saying you downloaded XP illegally?

Since you didn't pay for XP and you won't pay for Vista, maybe you should own a Mac.

No doubt a crack will be release, it's a question of when.

MS is doing a good job with Vista. It's over a month, and still not crack. Only work around methods, and they only give you like 6 months, and update Vista via windows update. Doing this will invalidate Vista. KMS seem the best method for now.

I'm sure the leaked KMS keys will be handled shortly. ...at least, until a KMS keygen becomes available.

Eventually, they'll have to authenticate to fingerprints or stab your finger for blood and a DNA screening before allowing you to launch Windows. Anything short of that will still be hacked. Even then...

No matter what M$ does stop or disrupt pirating it won't work. The ones using illegal software are willing to go that extra 10 miles. Unlike the legit user that will be really upset when they get screwed by WGA. The only ones affected will be the people who actually paid for it.

Kudos. I give it a month at most before this garbage anti-piracy thing is cracked. Just like XP, a way is always found around the anti-piracy schemes.

How does this negatively affect legitimate users?

The few seconds it takes to verify? Ouch, yeah, that's gotta really piss 'em off.

Or are you referring to the less that 1% that are falsely identified as non-genuine due to adware and buggy 3rd-party software?

In my experience - thats been 0%

You can count me in that less than 1%...and it was all caused by a driver upgrade. As far as I'm concerned Microsoft can take Windows and shove it up their a**.

Same here.

Personally I'd love to shove XP up Microsoft's a**... but I still haven't gotten gaming to work right on other OSes.

I wonder how hard it would be to write a program that all it does is:
1. Finds valid Vista Key
2. Register said key multiple times with diffrent hardware settings causing.
3. Causes WGA to mark it a prirated key
4. Repeat few million times forcing a large portion of valid keys to marked a pirated.

I've pretty much given up pc gaming myself. Just a couple of weeks ago took my system off dual boot to run only Kubuntu. While I realize console games aren't exactly up to par with PC games I'm perfectly satisfied with that.

Yeah, well that less than 1% your talking about has happened to 5 people that I know, not 1 not 2 but 5. So maybe just maybe it's a little more than 1% like a lot more. Checking for authenticity on the first install fine, I'm all for it, but not every 5 seconds. Imagine if WGA was not done via the Internet. How would you like if every day some a$$hole shows up on your doorstep demanding they look at you computer. Then I'm sure it would be a whole different story.

So here's how a look at it.
1.WGA is not perfect and could also a security risk.
2.M$ is treating their costumers like criminals when they check up on them on regular basis.
3.It's an invasion of privacy.

And the only ones not affected by this $hit are the ones running non legit copies of Windows.

Huh....5, eh? Impressive. I didn't realize being stupid was contagious.

1.) any software *could* be damn near anything...including a security risk. Good call, Nostradamus.

2.) MS is verifying the authenticity of your OS. This is not an inconvenience to the *vast* majority of legit users. The only reason you're b****ing about it is because you just enjoy b****ing about MS. The only other reason would be because you're not legit and it got ya.

3. No, its not. It's voluntarily installed and transfers *no* private information.

The last comment you made is just plain dumb. The race every damn day to stay one step ahead, they have to find all kinds of workarounds to install updates, and generally spend more time "fixing" their system than using it.

WTF are you smoking?

Talk about being stupid, apparently it is contagious. There's probably an outbreak in your area.

for every lock, there is a key...! for every piece of software, there will be a crack...!

are you guys forgetting about the whole hype around "the first music cd that you can't copy"? how long did it last? 2 weeks before they found a way to bypass it?

it has always been & will always stay this way. i've been using a cracked version of windows for many years now (from 95 to xp) and i'm not an ms-basher, but i do think that the products are waaaaaaaay overpriced...! as i student i just cannot pay that much for an os!

btw, they shut down the os, so you can't get to your files anymore? i have paid for my pc & i have every right to access my PERSONAL FILES! when you can't pay the rent of your house anymore, they can deny access to it, but they must give you your personal belongings first...they can't just keep that stuff...the same goes for your personal files on your hd!

sorry for my spelling mistakes, i'm a belgian dude :x

I agree with your first statement. As to the rest, seriously...

They don't physically shut the hard drive down. They don't put 256-bit encryption on it and not give you the key. The OS simply restricts you from logging in to your normal user account under normal circumstances. I've seen it happen many times on customer's PCs that come in to my shop with activation issues...

"You must first activate this copy of Windows before you can log on. Do you wish to do this now?"

You are then presented with options. Either activate over the internet (if it's not a reinstall of Windows and there are no NIC driver problems at that stage), or activate over the telephone (toll-free in the US, I might add, and taking approximately 5 minutes to complete... Microsoft will tell you 6).

Whether or not that is actually possible to resolve, you are still not locked out of your files. Logging in to the Administrator account in Safe Mode gives you complete access to all the files on your hard drive, even files located within different user profiles that may or may not have passwords (easily removed from the User Manager without needing to know what they were to begin with).

If you have another computer at your disposal, there are even more options. Remove your hard drive and place it in another computer. If they are networked, even easier... simply choose Safe Mode with Networking and transfer your files that way.

Sure, Safe Mode isn't much fun to use, but it's not supposed to be. It's a diagnostic mode used to try to fix problems not normally resolved within Normal Mode. It does not give you access to most programs that have been installed previously (trial and error will determine which ones will work). You can still access, transfer, and backup files. Most USB memory drives are recognized, and if you have a CD or DVD recorder drive, that option is available as well, assuming you have some type of 3rd-party recording software installed as well (the Windows XP built-in recording ability does not seem to work). On mine, Nero works fine.

If none of those options are available to you, there are other free and not-so-free bootable CDs that give you yet even more options: Ultimate Boot CD and ERD Commander are two that I use quite often at work. You could also try any number of different flavors of Linux "Live" discs to get your PC going. Knoppix is one that I've used on occasion.

in the US it's free, but in (all?) other countries it's a paid line (and not just the normal fee, but waaay above that)...

when you pay that much for an os, they should throw in free support and stuff...but hey, rich companies just want to get richer & richer...who am i to blame them...i would do just the same...

for now i'm happy with xp, and i know i will stay happy for a while...with this hardware in my pc, i don't even think about running vista (the memory eater!). i might consider the switch when i have a new pc, and then only when it's cracked (yéyé bash me for that, couldn't care less). i think alot of ppl will think the same: xp works fine & for free, so why switch to another overpriced resource-eating os...?!

Nice response. Can't form a clear and concise argument? No problem, that's what flaming is for.

Spoken like an expert. ;)