Login:
Password:
Lost Password?
Print this article  |  E-mail this article  |  Comment on this article

Microsoft Sued Over WGA Program

By Ed Oswald, BetaNews

June 29, 2006, 9:31 PM

Microsoft is the target of a class action lawsuit after a California man sued the company over violations of spyware statutes for its Windows Genuine Advantage anti-piracy program. The suit was filed Monday in a U.S. District Court in Seattle.

The case revolves around the WGA Notifications component, which was rolled out last November in a pilot phase, and officially launched worldwide earlier this week. The feature originally had a "phone home" functionality that caused computers to connect with Microsoft servers each day and check for updated configuration files.

Privacy advocates criticized Microsoft's methods, and the company removed the configuration check on Tuesday. However, the update was delivered after Los Angeles resident Brian Johnson filed his suit.

In the court filing, he says that Microsoft's methods were a violation of both the spyware laws of his home state, as well as Washington, where the Redmond company is headquartered. Those laws call for a notification process where the user is to be alerted of such features.

The suit does not ask for monetary damages, only an injunction to prevent the use of the feature in future releases. If Microsoft is indeed found guilty, however, it could be held liable for fines as per each state's statutes.

To its defense, Microsoft denied Johnson's claims, calling them a distortion of the purposes of WGA. A spokesperson said the company continues to modify the program based on the feedback from customers.

Lawyers for Johnson said the man is not interested in any notoriety for filing the suit, but simply a more clearer disclosure of Microsoft's objectives with the WGA program. Johnson himself has not publicly commented on the suit.

Add a Comment (160 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By ray metcalfe

edited Aug 11, 2006 - 11:55 PM

My legitimate copy of Windows that runs on the desktop pc that I use to run the real estate company that I own.

I my company files are being held hostage by Microsoft demanding that I purchase another copy of Windows.

I have two copies of Windows, one that came with the Gateway laptop I own and one that I purchased from a reputable computer store to upgrade my desktop from the windows 2000 professional that came with the machine.

I’m very good at litigating. How can I help?

Ray Metcalfe 907-344-4514

Score: 0

By hooc

edited Jul 3, 2006 - 12:18 PM

I would never in this lifetime buy a legal copy of Windows because of problems like these.

I say "Get your copy illegally" and stop giving those money grabbing basta*ds your money for the peice of sh*t Windows is. :)

Score: 0

By Metshrine

posted Jul 4, 2006 - 12:39 PM

If its such a piece of junk, why do you continue to use it? Oh yeah, you cant explain that!

Score: 0

By gatekiller

edited Jul 3, 2006 - 7:52 AM

I have to say I don't like any of Microsoft's WGA or Windows Activation...

I sold a computer to someone the other day with a leagal Windows XP Home OEM Licence.

When I set the PC up for them, they wanted to install a USB Wireless Thumb, so I installed it for them.

However, Windows wanted to be Activated again, and so I had to ring Microsoft. I ask the lady (In a call centre far far away) if this would happen everytime I installed some hardware. Her reply:

"This is what you have to do with all Microsoft Products... Thats Life!"

So when this couple buy a new printer or digital camera in a few weeks time, they will have to ring Microsoft... again.

This is why I really don't like WGA or Activation. I did the good thing and bought their product, but ended up being a suspected theif.

Score: 0

By eriqcook

posted Jul 3, 2006 - 9:07 PM

Installing new devices other than an entire motherboard does not trigger license verification. I can't count how many devices (various usb keyboards/mice, thumbdrives, bluetooth receiver, audio/video equipment) I've pluged into my current installation of Windows.

I would ask you the same as the post below me.

Score: 0

By Grazer

posted Jul 3, 2006 - 3:39 PM

"I sold a computer to someone the other day with a leagal Windows XP Home OEM Licence."

You do know OEM licenses are only legal for one machine(motherboard) right? And usually, usb devices do not trigger reactivation. Did you perhaps install and activate on another machine and then transfer the HD?

Score: 0

By gatekiller

posted Jul 4, 2006 - 4:36 AM

Nope, this is the only computer I installed it on. I got everything work correctly, and then activated windows before I gave it to them.

I'm not sure why the usb device triggered re-activation, but it wasn't a very good experience infront of a customer.

The point really is I don't think I should have to activate my copy of windows full stop. I mean, how annoying would it be if you had to ring up your car manufacturer in the morning before you can start your car?

Score: 0

By Darkman22

posted Jul 3, 2006 - 2:30 PM

Hey remember Robocop? Maybe Ed-209 lives on....

[d*** Jones directs Kinney to threaten ED-209. Kinney points a gun at the robot.]

ED-209: PLEASE PUT DOWN YOUR WEAPON. YOU HAVE 20 SECONDS TO COMPLY.

d*** Jones: I think you'd better do what he says, Mr. Kinney.

[Alarmed, Kinney quickly tosses the gun away. ED-209 growls menacingly.]

ED-209: YOU NOW HAVE 15 SECONDS TO COMPLY.

Score: 0

By pwned32

posted Jul 2, 2006 - 5:35 PM

wga doesnt bother me at all. you agreed to install it and if you dont like it, you shouldnt have done it in the frist place. microsoft is going to win this and i hope they do because consumer ignorance is not crime. and quit b****ing about your privacy you retards

Score: 0

By spiffyjeff

posted Jul 3, 2006 - 4:01 PM

consumer ignorance is not a crime, it's a strategy. Target ignorant users, and get what you want by making such updates installed be default. They'll probably come out witha Win XP SP3 that includes WGA. Hey, It's also every consumers right to complain about it, as with any product, "I like the program, but this feature sucks"

Score: 0

By geemann67

edited Jul 3, 2006 - 2:15 PM

Hello there A**H**L I hope some strange thing happen to you I hate the wga it's really BUSH that are doing this to people Microsoft is wasting all the time in the world with this wga crap!!!!!!cut it out!!!!!!

Score: 0

By prndll

posted Jul 2, 2006 - 8:00 AM

I can no longer justify using anything new from Microsoft. WinXP has become a complete waste of time and it looks like Vista is going to be worse. My most important pc will remain running 98se and I might use Win2k on another. I will never run XP and I'm not likely to use Vista. They can have their WGA. I have no use for it. 98se still does everything I need a computer to do.

Score: 0

By Galway

posted Jul 3, 2006 - 7:18 AM

Win 98 has a critial flaw that MS is not going to fix.

whether u like it or not XP is a good OS, that can be tweeked to turn the bells n whistles off, it autoupdates ( but the more savy among us make it ask first :) ), and its getting better.

Score: 0

By jp_ext

edited Jul 3, 2006 - 7:03 AM

We wont miss you! Stop commenting too then!
And yeah.. Your comment about Win98 shows how much you know about computers.

Score: 0

By prndll

edited Jul 3, 2006 - 9:16 PM

It is not a requirement to enter into a contest to see who knows more than who about computers. I find it amazing that knowledge of computers have apparently become the ability to jump through all those Microsoft hoops. You can choose your way. I will choose mine. My way however does not require so much grief and effort to do the simplest things. I simply stand in this digital world with the heart felt belief that I should never have to tell Microsoft or any other company that I have just changed any piece of hardware on my pc. This whole thing is not about protection of privacy but rather my refusal to relinquish my God given right to choose for myself what I want (without asking microsoft first). I sit in amazement seeing these posts saying XP is a good os right in the middle of discussions about problems that would have never existed without XP (or rather the mindset that Microsoft seems to have acquired). If you wish, you can consider yourself "computer literate" or even "leet" if you know how to bypass Sir Gates' tricky riddles. I however, will not allow myself to be so controlled and manipulated in such ways. Moving into the 21st century does NOT mean doing so by the dictates of Microsoft. I alone decide what exists on my computer and how far programs will go.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Jul 3, 2006 - 4:28 PM

A year and a half ago I could not perceive of Windows 98 disappearing. Today, however, I have changed my mind. It needs to go--it had its day, even its years...but now it's time for us to move to the 21st century...

Score: 0

By joeshmoe7

edited Jul 1, 2006 - 11:59 AM

Well here we go. Yesterday was the first time i personally had to pull out WGA notifications from a legit windows XP install because it thought it was not legit. And it was XP pre-installed on an HP laptop (from the factory - had all the OEM info in properties too :O). Nice work MS - thanks for the job :)

Score: 0

By Mark Gillespie

posted Jul 2, 2006 - 7:02 AM

Sounds like someone has stolen your key, and used it on another PC.

Nice Work..

Why is that Microsoft's fault?

Score: 0

By joeshmoe7

posted Jul 2, 2006 - 2:02 PM

sounds like someone is making assumptions

Score: 0

By The Man

posted Jul 2, 2006 - 10:08 AM

why isn't it?

Score: 0

By Darkman22

edited Jun 30, 2006 - 7:38 PM

Despite what people may say to try and justify it, the whole point really is that WGA phones home, which gives amongst other info, the exact time and date you logged on and your IP which can give your geographic location. This is without informing you or asking your permission to give THIS information. I have no problem with them protecting their property but what business is it of a company, as to know exactly the time and the day and even the location that i am using their product. Imagine if your own car called someone to give the exact time and date it was started and driven, and the locations you started from. People do have a right to privacy whether Bill Gates likes it or not, and we should not be so complacent as to give up any aspect of that right at all. The phrase "the thin end of the wedge" springs to mind.

Score: 0

By Galway

posted Jul 3, 2006 - 7:22 AM

So your not bothered about ur mobile company knowing your whereabouts, posibly listening to your phone calls, reading your messages and know exactly the same stuff ?

get the white suits, this ones paranoid.

Score: 0

By Darkman22

posted Jul 3, 2006 - 2:03 PM

Thats exactly the point, its not a mobile phone its an OS. I dont have to be really clever to guess that on my mobile phone, calls can be listened to, even if its just by the person sitting by me in the cafe. Many companies that i call will tell me before i even speak to anyone that my call will possibly be recorded and logged. The point is that i KNOW, they have TOLD me. Now call me old fashioned but if my TV, DVD player, fridge or even computer is suddenly going to start sending some information concerning me to persons unknown at places unknown, then i would like to be told about that too, maybe even just possibly asked? or is that just too much to expect? (Yes, i know my ISP will have the info, has my address, and even my bank details but they have them with my full consent, in fact when they ASK i even give them voluntarily!)

Score: 0

By Friar Tuck

posted Jul 1, 2006 - 11:22 AM

Darkman22, your forgetting one key issue here. It's Not Microsoft's Property, It's Ours. We pay for the OS, were not renting it. It's time that our courts woke up and start to realize just what THEY have allowed microsoft to do over the years.

Score: 0

By Spyderloco

posted Jul 1, 2006 - 2:03 PM

Technically you're wrong. If you read the license you are actually 'renting' it in not so many words. It's unfortunate and I hate it but that's how it is. :(

Score: 0

By The Man

edited Jul 1, 2006 - 2:37 PM

sort of,
once it's put on my computer, they have to PROVE it's their OS, and not some look-a-like. they can't legally search your computer just because they THINK it's their OS you're running. nor can they run malicious code that would have any adverse effects as to the functioning of your computer.
they may own the rights to the OS, but i own my PC. they can't DO anything to my computer, or gain any information from it, without my consent. and even still would need the courts to stop me from running what they considered to be a pirated version of their OS.

the theives are going to steal it, and the honest man is going to buy it. it's just making it more difficult for the honest man to use.

Score: 0

By Grazer

posted Jul 3, 2006 - 3:46 PM

If it installs WGA or requires WGA, doesn't that prove it is their OS? If it isn't, then whatever OS it is, is most likely infringing on MS's intellectual property, and at very least may be unlawfully accessing their servers.

Score: 0

By tigreseis

posted Jul 1, 2006 - 6:23 PM

What have you been smoking? They don't have to prove anything and as for searching your computer, all they need is probable cause to get a warrant.

Score: 0

By The Man

edited Jul 1, 2006 - 10:53 PM

you don't buy Probable cause at the supermarket. you have to prove it.

Score: 0

By themanhimself

posted Jun 30, 2006 - 2:47 PM

Seems Microsoft cant win. I see there point about protecting there property, as they worte it. But, they have taken the approach almost idenitcal to the lamers at Sony by letting WGA access too much data and pee people off. They should not be fined however for protecting that which is theres

Score: 0

By Babylon2x

edited Jun 30, 2006 - 7:01 PM

Should they be fined for mis-selling Windows under the pretence it's a "license" you're purchasing and not the actual software? Read one of my earlier comments here about it. It's bull, and no-one should actually be allowed to do it according to copyright infringement cases and laws.

It's great how big companies break certain laws to get their own way, yet if normal people break copyright laws, they're just no good filthy pirates there to be sued. I think MS should get fined (again read my earlier comment about problems with my own serial, and ask computer techs if they've had customers who's serial won't pass WGA even though it either came with their PC from a big manufacturer, or legally bought from a store, I know a few computer techs with stories to tell of this nature)

There's a different between protecting what is yours, and going so far to protect what is yours the product is actually hampered in the process.

Score: 0

By Metshrine

posted Jun 30, 2006 - 5:44 PM

What exactly do you consider too much data? What have they accessed that is so bad?

Score: 0

By wiljames

posted Jun 30, 2006 - 11:20 AM

Check out how you can desable it permanently:

http://www.infoblog.us/2...osoft-piracy-alarm.html

Don't forget to turn off Automatic Updates, or it will automatically install the notification again.

Score: 0

By Joe Dirt

edited Jun 30, 2006 - 2:03 PM

There ya go. ;)

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Jun 30, 2006 - 12:29 PM

You just exploited a betanews vulnerability...:)

Seriously, I want this page to look normal. Will you please edit the comment so I don't have to scroll ALL the way down to see the right panel??

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Jun 30, 2006 - 6:21 PM

Bummer, I missed it.

Score: 0

By Joe Dirt

posted Jun 30, 2006 - 10:10 AM

I'm glad this is happening. I hope Microsoft loses.

I'm very tired of companies just putting crap like this in their software because "average joe" doesn't know any better and will install it.

What happened to the days when you would install software and it did just what it was designed for? It didn't have any extra crap installed and nothing was bundled (like the freakin' toolbars).

WGA has made me take a serious look back at Microsoft and reconsider running nothing but Linux at home. And yes, I know how as I run Linux at work and I'm certified many times over in it.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 30, 2006 - 5:59 PM

Youre switching to Linux?

YAY@!!!!

Maybe then you'll stop your constant, uninformed, and ignorant b****ing about it.

Score: 0

By Metshrine

edited Jun 30, 2006 - 12:39 PM

Why do people insist on coming to a website like betanews and putting threats like "OK, microsoft has made me decide to check out linux"? Do you think anyone really cares about which OS you are going to run? Especially given the fact that you probably WONT switch. I gaurantee no one here will sleep better knowing that you are switching or even knowing what OS you are running. So please, go attempt to make these threats to be deviant elsewhere.

Score: 0

By xyzcb1

posted Jun 30, 2006 - 11:04 AM

Good for you, and be gone. If you are happy with your OS, then stick with it. It's a free world.

Average Joe should be glad to have companies like MS that take blames for them, because average Joe doesn't know what they are doing. They opened an attachment, and now their computer is taken over, and it because a "security hole/flaw" of the OS. I am wonder how some of us never get hit. Yea, we are lucky, it just like how Larry, Brian, Bill and Warren becomes so rich, they are just lucky.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 30, 2006 - 9:39 AM

Few things:

1.) WGA is voluntary.

2.) Not installing it *will* allow you to get critical updates.

3.) IE7 is *not* a critical update.

4.) If you *knowingly* install it, how can you *possibly* claim invasion of privacy? If it is installed, *you* did it. It was not forced upon you.

5.) It phones home. Now rarely. It passes *no* personal information. Simply the status of the program itself, it's version, and debug info.

Some other slashdot reader can finish this list. ;)

Score: 0

By Joe Dirt

posted Jun 30, 2006 - 10:12 AM

Blah Blah Blah.....

4.) The problem is that most people didn't know they did. They assumed it was something that they had to do updates. This is due to Microsoft's lack of explanation up front. They say something like "it will help you have a better experience with Windows by making sure it's Genuine". It never said it phoned home all the time.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 30, 2006 - 5:58 PM

The problem is that most people didn't know they did.

AND THEIR IGNORANCE AND COMPLETE LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY IS JUSTIFICATION FOR A LAWSUIT??!?!?!

What frigging planet do you live on???

Ignorance of the rules is not an excuse. Never has been, never will.

Score: 0

By Mark Gillespie

posted Jul 1, 2006 - 5:41 PM

WGA has never been a critical update..

Score: 0

By Silentmaster101

posted Jun 30, 2006 - 11:11 AM

so what if it does? there is no personally identifiable data. and it is microsofts windows.

Score: 0

By xyzcb1

posted Jun 30, 2006 - 11:00 AM

"The problem is that most people didn't know they did. "

You just nailed it. Companies like MSFT has to hold their hands to do it, and take all the blames for them. I see no different in this and AV program asking home for updates. You probably lose more information to website than this.

Score: 0

By jbaltz69

edited Jun 30, 2006 - 11:00 AM

It states it clearly before you install it. There own fault for just clicking buttons and not reading what Microsoft was telling them.

I wouldn't expect you to understand what I just said since it will probably be responded to with something childish and stupid, just like every comment you've ever posted on this site.

Score: 0

By RPDP

posted Jun 30, 2006 - 9:28 AM

What ever M$ [or any other company] does to stop piracy, there will be someone who is going to break the effort.

I agree with aredo: "If they really didn't want piracy they would just lower their insane prices and the majority of people then would surely buy the original."
Price should not be lowered with reduction in the features as in the case of "Starter Eds".

and finally,
While trying to have a better "Genuine Advantage", they are gathering more and more hatred from Genuine users.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 30, 2006 - 9:34 AM

"If they really didn't want piracy they would just lower their insane prices and the majority of people then would surely buy the original."
Price should not be lowered with reduction in the features as in the case of "Starter Eds"

Ah yes, a perfect example of logical thinking....or not.

Let me get this straight:

In your world, a company realizes it's having it's products stolen. Their response should be to lower prices? Uhhh....

Nice. It's brilliant. I mean, anytime we ever want a product to be cheaper, we should just steal it, right?

Whatever. Genuine users don't really give two sh1ts about this. The only folks getting pissy are the pirates, the MS bashers, and 'privacy advocates' who have no clue what they're actually talking about.

Score: 0

By MoRpHeUs2003

posted Jun 30, 2006 - 2:12 PM

PC_Tool,

I normally agree with most of the comments you post here but this is complete bull.

I work into a computer store as the manager and the lead technican of this store. Most people work are only getting minimum wage and cannot afford pricy software. I am Geniune. Its absolute bull that microsoft charges these ridicous prices. Microsoft is not in this alone though Adobe on the other hand also has redicious prices. Right now, Microsoft has the monopoly when it comes to software. Its only the pc enthusiast that will install linux and normally get very fustrated and put windows back on. Linux maybe free but the problem with linux is that compiling packages and normally installing programs can be a pain. I know there are .deb packages for debian and .rpm packages for redhat, but its not simple as windows.

Lets say for argument sakes. Microsoft sells about 2000 copies of xp home a day. Lets say the price is 300 bucks. Most people cannot afford three hundred bucks. Microsoft makes $600,000 bucks off this software. You and me know that when something goes cheaper more people buy. If we went to walmart and was going to pick up the dvd player. They would sell probably 20 of the 40 dollar dvd players to 3 80 dollar dvd players.
Ok now since the software would be cheaper lets say it was a hundred bucks. Double the people would by it so that would be 4000 instead of 2000. They are still making 200,000 dollars on just 2000 copies. The cost of the making the packages is only pennies and you know a blank cd doesn't cost nothing.

Microsoft would be better off lowering its prices. I could go on for hours here on this topic but its friday lol.

Thanks
MoRpHeUs2003

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Jun 30, 2006 - 5:54 PM

Morpheus,

I am sorry you think the prices are too highm but as stated elsewhere, you are one person. There *millions* who disagree.

Right now, XP Pro Upgrade can be had for under $130. Very easily. (Without an additional hardware purchase). I don't know where you get the $300 from. 'For arguments sake' assumes you want to have a rational argument.

A blank CD may be damn close to free, but the thousands of hours of development cost them billions. Just because one minor part of the cost is cheap, does not even come close to accounting for the cost of time, effort, and man-hours that went into it. Not just in dev, but in administration, building fees, maintenance, and the systems they use to do this on.

I can do simple math, I understand the point you are trying to make, but you are attempting to base these claims on a truely pitiful lack of information.

A lot of folks never take any of this into accout, so I'm not calling you dim, or stupid, but any business owner will tell you flat out, that running a business is *damn* expensive. A multi-billion dollar corporation even more-so.

Score: 0

By RPDP

posted Jul 1, 2006 - 4:34 AM

I think Morpheus was mentioning about Full Version Pack of Windows XP Pro. It comes to around $290+.
Also when you are buying a new PC, you cannot go for the XP Pro upgrade. So that statement seems to be invalid in this case.

"A blank CD may be damn close to free, .........
maintenance, and the systems they use to do this on."

I agree with you on that, but when a brand new PC just costs around $400 or less, and the OS costing more than half of it, anyone who doesn't have enough $$ in their pockets would be going for a pirated copy.

The point of arguement is that, M$ would be better off reducing the prices to reduce the piracy rather than pestering the Genuine users to validate that they are Genuine.

Score: 0

By eunichman

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 12:31 PM

From past experience in hardware sales, software sales and services sales I can only say this. Logic does not dictate sales. let me explain. LOGICALLY, when in sales, the more units you sell the more money you make. How this applies was stated above, 100 units at $300 a pop = $30,000. if you have a 150% markup on the actual cost of the item to sell it you then make (based on cost being $120)$12,000 profit on the sale of the 100 units. If you lower that cost of sale to $200 you might pick up another 100-150 sales so your gross profit will then be $16,000 - $20,000 for those sales. so LOGIC dictates that the closer you place your sales cost to your actual cost, the more units you will sell and the more profits you will make.
In reality however, and this I learned from personal experience over 15 years ago while selling services, the cheaper an item is the less people will buy it based on them thinking they are getting an inferior product or service. I give you as an example, while running a FREE service, I had 10 free subscribers. I priced the service at $25 and gained another 5. I raised the price again to $50 and gained 1, then the price skyrocketed to $99 for the same service i had for free and within a week I gained over 200 new subscribers. People are stupid like that i guess :)
The point here I am trying to make is as a seller or reseller, even though the math adds up to you sell as cheaply as possible, push more out the door and make more money, the market itself doesnt work that way. sellers and resellers charge the most the market will bear and thats just life, everywhere. look at the gas stations, they can sell gas cheaper, sell more and make more, but they sell as high as they can and rape the consumer. same for in the stores, bread doesnt cost 1-2 to sell, it costs like 30 to 40 cents.

Score: 0

By zappah1

posted Jun 30, 2006 - 10:01 AM

Hmmm since you do not mind programs using your computer to relay information without your consent, then you must be into spyware. Me I do not want ccompanies installing software on my computer without full disclosure and using my connection to relay information making my computer slow down drastically and connection slowing down. This is just plain WRONG!

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 30, 2006 - 5:55 PM

Idiot.

Did you *read* my post?

Your consent is given when you click the install button.

Your connection couldn't possibley slow down unless your using a 14,400 baud modem. It transfers version, debug info, and errors. Nothing more.

Score: 0

By DarkStar007

posted Jul 3, 2006 - 2:13 AM

PC_Tool

I don't think that people get that part.

Your consent is given when you click the install button

Score: 0

By Silentmaster101

posted Jun 30, 2006 - 11:14 AM

i challenge you to even notice the difference of it sending a ping packet like once every day or so, you wouldnt even notice if someone didnt come right out and say it..

Score: 0

By RPDP

posted Jun 30, 2006 - 11:23 AM

yes, they have mastered the art of spying so well, you wouldn't even notice what or when they are sending to their servers!!!!!!

Score: 0

By Tene

edited Jun 30, 2006 - 11:01 AM

Er, I'm a "genuine" user, on three computers actually. It just so happens that I reformat and reinstall every couple of months. The activation program doesn't seem to like that ... I don't really fancy phoning Microsoft every couple of months to be honest, so it's not just "pirates" and "privacy advocates" that don't like WGA.

Score: 0

By computershack

posted Jun 30, 2006 - 3:03 PM

Strange..I've formatted and reinstalled a few times this last month and never had to phone Microsoft.

Methinks there's something you're not telling us.

Score: 0

By Metshrine

posted Jun 30, 2006 - 12:42 PM

Thats activation, NOT WGA, get your info straight before posting

Score: 0

By Tene

posted Jun 30, 2006 - 1:27 PM

So, by thinking WGA doesn't notify when activation doesn't work, I haven't got my facts right ... Cough.

Score: 0

By Metshrine

edited Jun 30, 2006 - 5:45 PM

Yes, but that is not what you said in your post. Let me quote it for you since you seem to have forgotten.

Er, I'm a "genuine" user, on three computers actually. It just so happens that I reformat and reinstall every couple of months. The activation program doesn't seem to like that ... I don't really fancy phoning Microsoft every couple of months to be honest, so it's not just "pirates" and "privacy advocates" that don't like WGA.

You stated that you have to call MS. You even stated in your post "This activation program" showing that you do in fact know that it is activation, and not WGA you are talking about. Just seems to me like you finding a way to bad mouth MS. That has NOTHING to do with WGA but instead WPA. Please, get your story right.

Score: 0

By Metshrine

posted Jul 1, 2006 - 7:28 PM

Well, by enabling auto-update he agrees to that then because it is clearly stated in the EULA.

Score: 0

By kholdstare

posted Jun 30, 2006 - 9:17 AM

Well if this is spyware then i guess NAV's reminder that your liveupdate subscription has expired popup is spyware too or howabout trial software that keeps giving you a message to purchase the product i guess that is spyware too.

Score: 0

By The Man

edited Jun 30, 2006 - 11:39 AM

NAV is a stupid comparison to a Windows OS, they have completely different functions.
you buy an AV, because it gets regular virus definitions.

Score: 0

By Mark Gillespie

edited Jun 30, 2006 - 8:29 AM

Has ANYONE actually identified what harm WGA does? No BS answers like "it invades my privacy..".

Actual facts, tangible damage..

Score: 0

By The Man

edited Jun 30, 2006 - 2:09 PM

"Has ANYONE actually identified what harm WGA does?"

how about, unwanted intrusion of my home computer and it's files.

MS is trying to cover their a$$e$, it's not helping me in any way. so why would i agree to use my computer for their business? (isn't that what spyware does?)

and before you say it, i WANT NAV to get virus definitions. it's a paid subscription. i asked for that service when i bought it. i can even disable the auto d/land i can d/l the definitions and updates as seperate files.(and it doesn't call home to check if it's legit)

Score: 0

By computershack

posted Jun 30, 2006 - 3:05 PM

"MS is trying to cover their a$$e$, it's not helping me in any way. so why would i agree to use my computer for their business? (isn't that what spyware does?)"

So uninstall it. It's only there in the first place because you selected to install it.

"and before you say it, i WANT NAV to get virus definitions. it's a paid subscription. i asked for that service when i bought it. i can even disable the auto d/land i can d/l the definitions and updates as seperate files.(and it doesn't call home to check if it's legit)"

Strangely, that's exactly the same as WGA. You want updates because you paid for them. And you can download the updates without WGA.

Score: 0

By The Man

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 11:03 AM

"So uninstall it. It's only there in the first place because you selected to install it."

so is most spyware

Score: 0

By nilst2006

posted Jun 30, 2006 - 6:44 AM

Whatever You ran a pirated XP or NOT the WGA is nothing else but a spyware.

Score: 0

By Mark Gillespie

posted Jun 30, 2006 - 6:49 AM

LOL. Spyware.

You do know what spyware is...

If not look here,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spyware
and compare it with what WGA is doing..

WGA is not spyware, it's no different to what many applications do. i.e. validate themselves over the internet.

If WGA is spyware, then so is every other internet activated software.

It seems virtually everyone here is a crybaby warez kiddie, who's XP no longer works...

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Jun 30, 2006 - 7:18 AM

WGA is spyware, no matter how you spin it.

It installs without warning through automatic updates, and then it phones home, and pops messages up on computers.

Illegal installations of XP or not, that's still the definition of spyware.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 30, 2006 - 9:29 AM

Automatic updates are not enabled by default. it reauires user intervention and doing so gives MS the right to install anything they believe enhances or protects the operating system.

Obviously they believe this protects the OS. No shock there.

This ain't spyware.....no matter how you spin it.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Jul 1, 2006 - 7:22 AM

SP2 strongly recommends that Automatic Updates gets enabled, sure it can be disabled but who is gonna disable it? I don't see the value in manually installing patches every month, I have better things to do with my time.

Score: 0

By xyzcb1

posted Jun 30, 2006 - 7:27 AM

as far as I can tell, it did as you to install it. It does not automatic install w/o permission. You just can't install any thing that requires WGA if you don't install WGA

Score: 0

By GS5

posted Jun 30, 2006 - 8:28 AM

Yeah, it asks you if you want to install it, but you don't have a choice. If you don't install it you won't be able to get all those critical security updates. If you do something like that in real life it’s called blackmail or entrapment. WGA is a security risk and an invasion of privacy. And since Microsoft doesn’t know how to build software without serious security issues, it’s only a matter of time before someone finds a way to hijack WGA to upload malicious codes.

Score: 0

By Metshrine

posted Jun 30, 2006 - 3:31 PM

You do have a choice, hence why you can set Auto-Update to PROMPT you before installation and you can CHOOSE which updates to install.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 30, 2006 - 9:30 AM

uhhhh..

Misinformed, or just ignorant?

WGA does not block you from critical updates.

Score: 0

By GS5

posted Jun 30, 2006 - 9:56 AM

Well it does if you have an illegal copy :-)

Ok quick story, this guy at work has a legitimate copy of windows and one day after using windows update and installing WGA it told him that he didn’t have a genuine copy of windows. It took days and countless calls to Microsoft before they straighten it out. Now, if that had happened to me I’d be pissed. I would personally go down to Redmond and kick B.G.'s A$$.

Score: 0

By wat0114

posted Jul 3, 2006 - 2:57 AM

Once again, it is important to notice the "subtle" differences between the WGA Notification and WGA Validation components.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 30, 2006 - 5:47 PM

No. It doesn't.

Even if you fail, you can continue to get *critical* updates.

IE7 is *not* critical.

Score: 0

By Mark Gillespie

posted Jun 30, 2006 - 1:44 PM

Errm, having illegal copy of XP, does not block you from critical updates, any copy of XP can get these.

It's all non-critical updates and features, that WGA protects.

Score: 0

By Silentmaster101

posted Jun 30, 2006 - 11:16 AM

99% of the cases ive seen with wga not working, which is maybe 15-20 so far, just requires you to try to download something that requires validation, then it will reinstall itself and the problem will go away. just like that no problems and it took less than two minutes.

Score: 0

By xyzcb1

posted Jun 30, 2006 - 8:57 AM

You do have a choice. There is Autopatcher.

And another thing, how is WGA is a security risk, and how is MS doesn't know how to build software w/o serious secruity issues. I see nothing other than bashing here. If MS software has a serious security issue, can you give me a freaking reason why their server products stealing market shares from other server products?

Score: 0

By GS5

posted Jun 30, 2006 - 10:32 AM

They’re stealing market shares because Windows is easier to manage than Linux. A chimpanzee can manage a Windows Server and you only pay it bananas. Linux on the other hand requires professionals with actual programming skills, and these people can be expensive. It’s all about cutting cost. Windows Server’s market share isn’t growing because it’s better that Linux or Unix, it’s just cheaper and easier to operate.

Score: 0

By xyzcb1

posted Jun 30, 2006 - 11:14 AM

"it’s just cheaper and easier to operate."

That's the key to MS success, in fact to any IT company success. Do you think Google get to be number 1 in search because they make it difficult to search result? And why can't Linux make themselves easier to operates? Probably because it's programs by monkey and need to run by a monkey. If I am running a company and I cannot be theaten by a few system admins, if that's the case my company is at serious risk.

Score: 0

By xprizex

posted Jun 30, 2006 - 11:54 AM

As a server OS Linux cannot be beat. Linux is faster a thousand times more stable than windows and it never has to be rebooted. Windows might be easy and cheaper to operate but has a huge problem with disk fragmentation. If not defragmented frequently it slows to a crawl. It has to be rebooted after every updates and most new programs installed. And you yes, Windows 2003 still has that classic blue screen of death. Not really qualities you want in a server. Linux may not be as user friendly as Windows but it sure can outperform Windows Server. And by the way Linux is easier now than it's ever been.

Score: 0

By Metshrine

posted Jun 30, 2006 - 3:40 PM

That must be why its market share hasnt grown by any percentage most people would consider significant in the last, oh say, 10 years? Yes, Linux is good as a server OS, but you know, so is windows. I've never had a problem with the active directory servers where I work (all 57 we have in our cluster) and not one has had a problem. You say having a BSOD is a bad quality in a server OS, what about linux's Kernal Panic or core dump? Is that not the equivelant of a windows BSOD?

Score: 0

By Silentmaster101

posted Jun 30, 2006 - 8:31 AM

so you do have a choice then, you may not be able to get updates but you do have a choice. i suppose following your logic, you want a choice as to if you have to activate also?

Score: 0

By LRN

posted Jun 30, 2006 - 6:13 AM

Mark Gillespie, "...make a quick buck..."
Article, "...The suit does not ask for monetary damages..."

Score: 0

By Mark Gillespie

edited Jun 30, 2006 - 4:48 AM

Some lamer trying to make a quick buck from a company with money.

Microsoft have the right to protect their software from piracy using WGA..

Far too many people expect a free copy of a OS that took $$$$$$$$$$$$ to develop.

Score: 0

By GS5

posted Jun 30, 2006 - 6:38 AM

Yeah well, that lamer is 100% right and he doesn't want any money from M$ he just wants his privacy. Finally a lawsuit that I agree with.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 30, 2006 - 9:20 AM

...so maybe he shouldn't have installed it?

WGA is voluntary. You either have to have Automatic updates enabled (giving MS permission to install *anything* they believe enhances or protects the OS), or going to WU and manually downloading it.

This 'lamer' has no case. He'll be laughed out of court.

Score: 0

By anmol.2k4

posted Jun 30, 2006 - 10:00 AM

And that way even after paying for a legal copy he wont get updates, that may suit you but it does not suit many.
I have a legal copy but this thing is very annoying, and it creates even more troubles if one does not have an Internet connection.

For one time its ok , but it is doing this again and again.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 30, 2006 - 5:46 PM

I'm getting tired of this.

You don't seem to understand some very simple concepts.

1.) Anyone failing WGA can *still* recieve critical updates. Even so, they were never guaranteed. The OS licenses are for the OS, *AS IS*.

2.) how on this bloody green earth would one without an internet connection ever GET the WGA update? Seriously, you really need to start using your brain.

*the previous statement assumes you have one, and it is not damaged by misuse, neglect or meth.

Score: 0

By anmol.2k4

posted Jul 1, 2006 - 5:59 AM

I agree that i failed to explain what i was talking about.
I was not talking about getting updates when one does not have net connection.
Out of frustration i typed that up as i had downloaded ie7 beta and suddenly something went wrong with our network and when i started to install IE7 it just wont install because it had to validate the windows copy and that needed net connection.
last statement shows my frustration as i think i have validated my copy of windows windows many many times.

Because of this i was compelled to write some thing against WGA.

And as far as i can remember that some Microsoft employee said that this is going to get mandatory, so no matter what i think we should raise our voice against this as i love windows and i already find validating again and again very irritating.

And also when we buy something lets say a hdd or a TV we also get warranty don't we, same way if there is a problem in the OS they should fix it in every single genuine windows installation.

Looking at what WGA is capable of i think there is a strong possibility that they may not provide updates any more if one removes WGA.

All in all what i see is IE7 asking me to validate windows and if we are not going to raise our voice im sure we are going to see similar things.

I think this guy is doing right thing, and i would have done same.

Corporations are not Gandhi, and that is why I too will not act like one.
A sign of vulnerability at their side, SUE THEM.

PC_Tool,you are one of those who care about what is happening , im one of those who care about what is happening and what can happen.

Score: 0

By Metshrine

posted Jun 30, 2006 - 3:33 PM

Has it affected you? Has it caused you to spend time on fixing it that could have been spent on other things?

Also, You DO GET UPDATES, regardless of the WGA being installed or not. EVERY COPY, even illegal copies, gets critical updates. So please, learn what you are talking about before posting

Score: 0

By anmol.2k4

posted Jul 1, 2006 - 6:14 AM

YES IT DID, IE7 requires validation.

And many other programs.

And also the fact how they did this, and what they can do with it.

And i see IE7 as an update too, and pretty critical.
And im sure they are not going to stop there.
And they are also planing to make this mandatory.

Score: 0

By Metshrine

posted Jul 4, 2006 - 12:41 PM

IE7 will be considered a "critical" update when it is RELEASED, but in its beta state it is FAR FROM critical. So yes, you should have to validate for it.

Score: 0

By Silentmaster101

posted Jun 30, 2006 - 8:32 AM

no he isnt, he doesnt own his windows intallation, so microsoft's rights>his rights.

Score: 0

By aredo

posted Jun 30, 2006 - 5:39 AM

Do you work for Microsoft, I wonder ?
Microsoft HAS NO RIGHT to act as it was CIA,FBI,NSA or anything else. Microsoft HAS NO RIGHT to spy on users. If they suspect someone is using an illegal copy they must got thru Justice burocracy, sue the individual or business and deal with it.
The Law and the Government should ban WGA-like spyware things as well as the WPA thing.
Manufacturers don't have any right to do any online checking on people and put more and more restrictions on product use.

If they really didn't want piracy they would just lower their insane prices and the majority of people then would surely buy the original.
Higher prices and spying on people just increases piracy instead, and that's obvious. If the seller is doing illegal and immoral things first, customers reaction follows.

Score: 0

By Mark Gillespie

posted Jun 30, 2006 - 6:30 AM

Let face it. The only people crying here, are people that have been running warez copies of XP, and can't get away with it any more..

Anyone with a legit copy of Windows XP has nothing to fear from WGA..

Score: 0