Activating Vista Enterprise Using a Spoofed Server

Ruvim writes "It has been mentioned in previous Slashdot discussions as possibility, and now it became a reality: Information Week reports that a spoofed server has been released that can be used to activate Microsoft's Vista Enterprise versions. It is being made available on several pirate Web sites and spoofs a Key Management Service server, used to activate a large number of copies of Windows Vista in enterprise environments." From the article: "Vista is the first version of Windows that Microsoft requires volume license customers to activate. Besides KMS, the Redmond, Wash. developer also offers Multiple Activation Key, which resembles the retail version's activation process. PCs activated using KMS must reactivate at least once every six months. The MelindaGates hack uses a VMware image of a KMS server to activate -- and keep activated -- a pirated edition of Windows Vista Business. 'Looks like Windows Vista Volume Activation 2.0 is a big bust,' wrote a user identified as 'clank' on the PirateBay Web site Friday. "

Comments

Soviet Microsoft

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

In Mysterious Future, Vista Activation Spoofs You!

Re:Soviet Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

pepsi

Re:Soviet Microsoft

[WilliamSChips]

The Penis Game is isomorphic to Nim.

yep

[User 956]

Information Week reports that a spoofed server has been released that can be used to activate Microsoft's Vista Enterprise versions.

And you don't even need a separate computer. You can spoof the activation from the same machine.

Re:yep

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing I haven't quite understood, because I haven't played with vista or looked closely at XP's WGA:
I've seen people claim that it's not just a one-time activation of the software, but also that the software tries to call home each time the computer boots.

What happens with respect to computers that have been activated initially, but are not connected to the internet, or have a hardware firewall that blocks access to Microsoft's validation server? Will Windows stop working because the software can't re-validate itself, or will it just ignore the revalidation step? Is the check-upon-booting needed for downloading updates, but not for normal operation?

Short on details

[weave]

Sounds like someone just stole a vmware image from their work that is set up as a kms (many sites are just plugging their KMS in as a vmware guest to get going).

I'm sure that Microsoft must have thought of that as a possibility. Since a unique product key is required to activate a KMS, why can't Microsoft just deactivate that compromised KMS key?

Re:Short on details

[Creepy Crawler]

OK... vmware runs upon another OS. Say... linux.

I now route all packets to null and whitelist what I want to allow. Problem solved.

Re:Short on details

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure that Microsoft must have thought of that as a possibility.

And you came into this conclusion because... Microsoft has such a good track record in security?

Re:Short on details

[Anonymous Coward]

And you came into this conclusion because... Microsoft has such a good track record in security?

The only good MS security track record is in copy protection.

To get MS terminal server licenses activated you have to jump through many hoops - it's extremely annoying. On the other hand, I've never heard of any hacks for it.

Re:Short on details

[Anonymous Coward]

That's assuming the information somehow escapes because pirates are mass distributing keys and other information. On the other hand, legitimate purchasers of Vista may want to do their own "home-grown validation" in order to get a product that:
A) doesn't phone home to MS on a regular basis
B) dosen't need to re-validate on a regular basis and break if it doesn't
C) doesn't throw a hissy fit if they do too many hardware upgrades, and,
D) continues to work the way the product SHOULD work when they are actually legitimate customers, despite whatever bugs may exist in the validation software.

In other words, people with legitimate licenses may want to circumvent for the purposes of yielding a more reliable system without this superfluous "feature", in which case they don't have to use or expose the existence of technically illegitimate keys. They can just block anything involved with validation to/from Microsoft at the router, in which case MS can deactivate the key all they like, but the spoofed system won't see it if it is only talking to the fake key server.

Re:Short on details

[The MAZZTer]

I'm sure that Microsoft must have thought of that as a possibility. Since a unique product key is required to activate a KMS, why can't Microsoft just deactivate that compromised KMS key?

If YOU were a pirate, would YOU download an update which adds this "functionality"?

Re:Short on details

[JFitzsimmons]

It has been a long time since I administered a terminal server but I'm pretty sure it was based on the honour system. i.e. "please enter the number of licences you have purchased: ____"

Re:Short on details

[Sancho]

A) doesn't phone home to MS on a regular basis

I've never read anything that implied this was the case for OEM/OTS versions. Got a citation?

B) dosen't need to re-validate on a regular basis and break if it doesn't

I haven't read anything about this, either, except for the typical WGA stuff. Is there any evidence that business customers don't have to run WGA stuff to apply updates?

C) doesn't throw a hissy fit if they do too many hardware upgrades, and,

I thought Microsoft caved on this one.

D) continues to work the way the product SHOULD work when they are actually legitimate customers, despite whatever bugs may exist in the validation software.

This one's a good point, but the validation is inherent in Vista. Nothing says the Business version might not freak out and think it needs to be activated with Microsoft (which, given that it will have a Business key, might not even be possible--I just don't know).

Anyway, legitimate users are probably better off playing by Microsoft's rules. They might get through a few patch cycles fine, but eventually Microsoft will release a patch that stops this behavior, and then they're going to have proglems.

Re:Short on details

[Amouth]

There where ways.. it wasn't that hard.. in fact it was really easy to have the connecting client clear it's temp key so that every computer connecting everytime would appear to terminal server as a new cient and would issue a 30 day key.. and everytime they connected it gave them a new one.. and after 90 days the terminal server would drop the non active temp key.

or the better way was to manual configure the registry and get terminal server to run under internet connector license..

while it took some work it wasn't that bad once you figure it out.

Re:Short on details

[supremebob]

Terminal Services licensing is pretty easy to bypass, which is good because my customers have a bad habit of losing the license keys that they paid for. Windows 2000 works on the honor system, so that's a non-issue. For Windows Server 2003, just set the terminal server to check users instead of machines, since user licenses are not tracked.

Re:Short on details

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like...Linux?

Oh, wait...BSD?

Or...how about...OS/X?

nm. You're a tard.

Re:Short on details

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember on Exchange 5.5 we would just disable the Licensing Service, and bingo... No restrictions!

Re:Short on details

[lukas84]

Is there any evidence that business customers don't have to run WGA stuff to apply updates?

When you're using WSUS, you didn't need WGA in order to install updates - this changed a few agos though, since IE7 and WMP11 require WGA validation.

Re:Short on details

[aliquis]

If it's required to get further updates? Well then yes.

Microsoft has taken an interesting approach ...

[jfclavette]

Vista Business and friends are the most likely to be cracked due to volume licensing. However, features are removed in a way that it is advantageous to businesses but turn away most home users. It'll be interesting to see how that works out.

Re:Microsoft has taken an interesting approach ...

[crabpeople]

No thats not true. Even VLK has to be activated. Aparently they will be having a machine ala SUS that makes all the authorization attempts for them. They said the activations are like 180 days or so.

Re:Microsoft has taken an interesting approach ...

[MoxFulder]

What does Microsoft do for government customers like the CIA/NSA/DIA? Some of those networks are completely and totally isolated from the public Internet.

I imagine Microsoft must provide them with a KMS that doesn't itself require activation, which can be run on a secure, closed network. I imagine it's not widely publicized...

Re:Microsoft has taken an interesting approach ...

[TheGratefulNet]

What does Microsoft do for government customers like the CIA/NSA/DIA? Some of those networks are completely and totally isolated from the public Internet. ...greetings professor falke^C

ooops. damn.

Re:Microsoft has taken an interesting approach ...

[Kjella]

On a wild ass guess, they either get new activation codes or CDs with updated keys. Isn't that how you can phone in and activate Windows today? Geez, sometimes you make not being connected to the Internet sound so much more difficult than it is. If they have to do that for one central server, it's hardly a big deal.

Re:Microsoft has taken an interesting approach ...

[RickPartin]

I'm curious what they've taken out of the Business edition. I have a free legit copy on the way and thought it was basically the same as Ultimate except for MediaCenter software and Bitlocker. Two extras I'll never use.

This is the list I'm looking at. http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/edi tions/default.mspx

Re:Microsoft has taken an interesting approach ...

[MoxFulder]

I thought Microsoft no longer allowed "phone in" activation... but perhaps I misunderstood that. I haven't used Windows at home in about 5 years, so I'm starting to get hazy on the details.

Re:Microsoft has taken an interesting approach ...

[Anonymous Coward]

They do. I phone-activated an XP Home system in November. I actually own the license but it's installed on two desktops at once and both of them had been rebuilt on new system boards within 180 days so I could not make use of the "free-install-twice-a-year" legal activation option.

Two PCs and only once license. Oh I AM a pirate. Whine whine. Sue me. At least they're both using a license I actually paid for.

Look, I *could* have installed yet another cracked version of XP Pro Corporate and been done with it, but this was going on my Mom's PC out of state and I didn't want to deal with long distance hassles in case MS goes after cracked versions again. Yes. I AM too cheap to buy my Mom her own license.

When SHE PAYS ME (which will be a cold day in hell) for the used car she bought from me, then we'll see about who pays for what. (Never sell a car to your parents: when you ask for the money, they throw up things like how many times they changed your diapers, how many times you ate their food, etc. This is true but it doesn't HELP you get money out of a car that you COULD have sold to anyone else for cash and walked away that much richer and maybe paid bills or something. So no. Sell your cars to strangers, not your parents.)

So anyway, I did the phone thing and it was totally painless. You talk to a computer, it gives you back the code you have to key in. The computer DOES talk rather quickly so it's best to record the call or just write very fast. Took less than three minutes and Mom's PC was totally legal as far as MS is concerned.

I've since gotten myself a Macbook and I'm working on migrating over to it, so my single XP license will actually become legal again sometime soon. Wooooh.

Re:Microsoft has taken an interesting approach ...

[Threni]

> I haven't used Windows at home in about 5 years, so I'm starting to get hazy on the details.

They still use phone activation on XP. I had to keep phoning them because we constantly moved hard drives between machines at work and it was often I who had to call their Indian call centres and try and decipher whatever the fuck it was that they were saying. Having said that, it was an amusing distraction from work - when they asked `are you only using the hard drive on one machine` I'd ask `if I say no, you're not going to let me activate it, are you?`, get the reply `no sir` and reply `in that case, I certainly am`. I'm not entirely sure what the point of this whole procedure was - presumably I could have been using a pirate copy of windows and they'd still have activated my copy of windows. Perhaps it was just a test run for whatever the hell they're doing on Vista?

Re:Microsoft has taken an interesting approach ...

[Skuld-Chan]

I know for activation schemes like flexnet such solutions do exist (usually involves a special client config file), and your right - its not very widely publicized.

History always repeats itself looks like

[ZDRuX]

The software, loaded with the long name of "Microsoft.Windows.Vista.Local.Activation.Server-M elindaGates" is available on several pirate Web sites. It spoofs a Key Management Service server, one of the two technologies that Microsoft debuted last month that let businesses activate a large number of copies of Windows Vista. KMS requires that at least 25 PCs be connected to a corporation's network.
All I can say is: [nelson voice]ha ha !![/nelson voice]

Re:History always repeats itself looks like

[iSeal]

The most surprising bit is that implementing cracks of this nature is nothing new. That's how cracks work for flexlm based products (Maya, ArcGIS.) You would thus think that MS would have learned from their failures and made a more resilient system. And by resilient I mean one that could last more than a week before being ultimately cracked.

Re:History always repeats itself looks like

[CastrTroy]

The problem is that there's just too much "fame" in cracking windows authentication. We used Telelogic Tau SDL in university, and it was only available on the university computers, and even there there was a limited number of licenses. We contacted the company to see if we could get some cheap/free licenses. They said no, and that licenses cost around $2000. Which was almost as much as a semesters tuition. Anyway, we also looked to pirating it, and couldn't find it anywhere. The problem was that it wasn't a popular enough program that anybody would bother cracking it. However, with windows, everyone wants it cracked, and everybody wants to be the one to crack it. So it's going to get cracked. I mean, look at the game consoles. People solder chips into the to crack them, but I don't think you'd find a way to install Linux on the v-Tech notebook. People are going to crack what they want to crack.

Re:History always repeats itself looks like

[Anonymous Coward]

2005-03-10 PC App ISOs Telelogic TAU Generation2 V2.4 SP1 ZWTISO 1 CD 57
2004-12-30 PC App ISOs Tau Generation2 V2.4 (c) Telelogic RORISO 07x15 MB 9
2004-11-07 PC App ISOs TAU Generation2 V2.3 (c) Telelogic RORISO 06x15 MB 7

Maybe you didnt look hard enough?
I found those listed on a public dupe check/nfo site.

Piracy and competition

[robvangelder]

The prize being to 0wn the Microsoft security mechanisms, but more-so to do it before rival warez groups.

The warez groups aren't so much competing against Microsoft, but amongst themselves - for the sheer status of it.

Re:Piracy and competition

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent: +1 'Well... yeah. We know.'

(My captcha here was 'hacked'. How about that? :) )

Self Contained Networks

[nra1871]

Interesting...our network is completely self contained and does not touch the internet at all. I wonder how this will work for networks like mine (no plans to upgrade anytime in the near future, and since we use the workstations to run Citrix-based apps, it doesn't matter what OS we use.)

Re:Self Contained Networks

[ZDRuX]

I`m assuming they will have alternate ways of re-activating your license once every 6 months (as it seems that's what it requires) - much like XP, you can simply phone up and activate over phone. Except this time you wouldn't be activating your client machine, you'd be activating the local server that validates your client machines.

Re:Self Contained Networks

[Anonymous Coward]

You can set up your own KMS, assuming you're large enough to make it worthwhile. Failing that, MAK's can be made available that will activate from 1 to N machines much like the old Volume License Key.

Or you can switch to Linux and/or OSX. :)

Re:Self Contained Networks

[icepick72]

Or you can switch to Linux and/or OSX. :)

Or you can simply allow activation of Windows if it's the platform you choose to use and develop on. I'm sure Microsoft will be more than happy to help because they do want you to buy their product. It's probably rather easy to do.

Re:Self Contained Networks

[mrchaotica]

Read the grandparent post. You can't "simply allow activation" if your systems aren't connected to the Internet!

Re:Self Contained Networks

[Anonymous Coward]

There was phone activation for XP. I suppose it works the same way here.

Re:Self Contained Networks

[icepick72]

You can't "simply allow activation" if your systems aren't connected to the Internet!

Getting your info from the right sources? ... Microsoft says differently:
Q. Does MAK activation require Internet connectivity?
A. MAK activation can be performed either online or by telephone.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/plan /faq.mspx

I argued the point that Microsoft will make it easy for you to activate their product because they want to sell it to you. Indeed they do.

Or you can switch to Linux and/or OSX. :)

Now I assume that smiley from your original post indicates a joke. You caught me!

Re:Self Contained Networks

[mrchaotica]

Phoning in the activation isn't "simply allowing it." From what I've heard, it's a much more involved process than activating online.

Or you can switch to Linux and/or OSX. :)

Now I assume that smiley from your original post indicates a joke. You caught me!

I didn't write that; it was an AC. If I had, I wouldn't have put the smiley there.

Re:Self Contained Networks

[icepick72]

From what I've heard

From what you previously heard, you were under the assumption you needed an internet connection to activate; however that was wrong and you had a false argument, proved by Microsoft.
Now can you really really trust you heard something correct? Once again ... are you sure you're getting your information from the right sources? I cannot buy new hearsay based on the error of your previous hearsay. Please produce proof.

Not really new.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is exactly how cracks for flexlm based products (Maya, ArcGIS) work as well.

Just Wait...

[Iriestx]

Honestly, I'm going to laugh my ass off 6 months down the road when MS pushes out a mandatory WGA update, disguised as another 'critical update,' that nukes pirated installs. All these scam cracked/KMS/pirated Vista copies are going to lock-up, shut down and only be able to do one thing, display the phone number to call MS to purchase a legitimate key. Pirates have gotten by the initial flaws in the authentication system. Microsoft is going to change it, and quietly force everybody to reactivate from a legitimate source. Just wait... it's coming. If you really need a free, modern OS, rather than run something that clings to functionality through hacks, cheats, cracks and work-arounds, why not just bite the bullet and download a good desktop Linux distro? It's free. It's arguably more capable than Vista. How/where/when you play your media isn't decided by the AAs and to top it all off, you don't have to hack/crack/scam to get it to run.

Re:Just Wait...

[ZDRuX]

...why not just bite the bullet and download a good desktop Linux distro? It's free. It's arguably more capable than Vista.

Because Linux does not run Everquest and 99% of the other games I like to play on a regular basis. So as far as a "Conveninent home OS that everybody can use" - Windows is still king regardless of what everybody says.
If I had the luxury of having 2 or 3 system in my house, then I would be running Windows for the family, and Linux on the other 2 for myself, but untill the time comes when Linux can have the type of compatibility with the every-day apps that Microsoft provides, I don't think my family would appreciate me switching over to Linux. And that I think, is the main reason why Linux is still not on the majority of people's computers.

Re:Just Wait...

[Iriestx]

Bah.. I'd get a console if I wanted a gaming platform. I'll take Linux over Windows for computing any day of the week.

Re:Just Wait...

[Kingrames]

be sure to let me know when you find World of Warcraft on a console.

Re:Just Wait...

[PieSquared]

Could you set it up to dual boot? I did that to my laptop yesterday, and it was my first experience with Linux. I can now use windows for playing several games, and linux when I feel the need. *I* haven't noticed any problems, but if you don't have 50GB of free space (like I did) it might not be an option. Consider extra space the next time you buy a computer, and during set up go ahead and partition it... you can always undo it later if you decide to give up on Linux.

Re:Just Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, I'm going to laugh my ass off 6 months down the road when MS pushes out a mandatory WGA update, disguised as another 'critical update,' that nukes pirated installs.


Me too. But I'm going to DIE laughing when it turns out they nuked thousands of legit copies along with the pirate copies.

I don't object to paying for software, but there is no way in hell I'm going to put up with the vista activation bullshit.

Fooled me once (XP) shame on you. Fooled me twice (and tied me up and kicked me a few times (Vista)) shame on me.

Re:Just Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

why not just bite the bullet and download a good desktop Linux distro?

As I am telling my family today, it's either linuc or apple. I don't want the hassle their products afford. Virus/hacker wise or activation wise.

Re:Just Wait...

[Iriestx]

If your OS choice rests solely on 'which plays WoW' then you probably have bigger issues than I'm qualified to help you with.

Re:Just Wait...

[nanodec]

i'm just laughing my ass off to whomever figured this little spoof out.. my hat is off to you... whomever you are ;)

Re:Just Wait...

[geekoid]

nope. just spoof what the OS is looking for.
Or find the area in hex and insert a jump pass the MS activation lookup.

Re:Just Wait...

[geekoid]

"Conveninent home OS that everybody can use"

the MAc is, and it can probably run 99% of the games you play.
Is 1% of games really worth having an OS that can be deactivated whenever the company wants to do it? or that it wont get deactivated by mistake? Not me. I don't own a Mac, but I will get one before I install Vista.

Re:Just Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I'm hoping Vista will finally be what pisses people off enought to seek alternatives. If OS X or Linux can help to take Windows down to, say, 80% of the market that would be a massive improvement for all.

Re:Just Wait...

[turnip torrent]

Even if you don't have a lot of free space, you can set up a Linux/Windows dual boot system with an FAT partition to share files between the two operating systems. Then you could play games on Windows and edit your documents on either. It doesn't seem that nowadays one has to be loyal to one OS only. Of course, many people won't be crazy about repartitioning their hard drives, especially if they already have a lot of files stored on them.

Re:Just Wait...

[BeanBunny]

Well, I was with you until you started gushing over Linux. Don't get me wrong, I like Linux too, but I yearn for the day that people don't end a comment about Microsoft with, "Why don't you just run Linux? It's so great!" That may be true, but this is Slashdot - we know that already!

Re:Just Wait...

[bongey]

Woops .. ah .. World of Warcraft can be played on linux with little work, thing is I play on linux because I get BETTER overall performance in linux under wine. Do not ask me how but the average fps is higher in linux on the same exact machine. Yes windows does peak higher on fps , but some reason it crawls sometimes(3-4 fps) and nothing is install with windows but wow for comparison.

Re:Just Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

Asshat.

Re:Just Wait...

[jrockway]

Leopard will require activation. Now sounds like a good time to start weaning yourself off of proprietary software. It's going to get worse (TPM) before it gets better (copyright abolished).

Re:Just Wait...

[jasen666]

Anyone with half a brain and a cracked Windows install disables WGA first thing anyway. Thus rendering your "mandatory" update, not so mandatory.

Re:Just Wait...

[Beer_Smurf]

But World of Warcraft does run on a Mac.

Re:Just Wait...

[Jugalator]

Hehe, was that post an attempt at "recruitment by fear"? ;-)

Re:Just Wait...

[Sancho]

The problem is that you'll start doing more and more in Windows. Like you'll quit playing your game and want to go read a FAQ, so you open up IE. While you're there, you might as well check your e-mail. And there's no point in rebooting, because you'll want to play the game next time you use your computer, anyway.

Sooner or later, your bookmarks on Windows exceed the ones in Linux, and the time it takes to reboot seems like such a waste, and you eventually end up blowing your Linux partition away in favor of Windows, because you're in it all the time, anyway.

Re:Just Wait...

[turnip torrent]

Very true. I guess this is a reason to play more Linux games. Frozen Bubble totally owns 3D Pinball!

Re:Just Wait...

[jonwil]

Pirates will either not install the "manditory patch" or will wait for the hackers to obtain it and remove the disabling functionality.

Re:Just Wait...

[Kuciwalker]

If playing WoW is one of your major activites on the computer then what exactly is wrong with ability to run WoW being a factor in OS choice?

Re:Just Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, most of us who run Windows also like our OS to run on any hardware that we care to buy without spending hours reverse engineering config files.

We also like being able to run real desktop software that has had the benefit of being put through a QA process and didn't have the interface designed by a retarded wombat. You know, stuff like Quicken (GnuCash can kiss my ass). Hmmm, lets see, ahhh there are no graphics programs that work for anything I do. No programming IDE's that don't run like they have a 50 pound tumor on their testicles. In fact there are no acceptable Linux based equivalents to any of the tools that I use and rely on every day. Perhaps it is you whose life is pitifully pointless?

Re:Just Wait...

[Holi]

I'd call ndiswrapper a hack.

Re:Just Wait...

[Overly Critical Guy]

No, it won't. You just pulled this out of thin air. Mac OS X Leopard will absolutely not require activation nor a serial key, just like every previous version of Mac OS X.

Re:Just Wait...

[thestuckmud]

I have not seen evidence supporting that claim. On the contrary, Bertrand Serlet, SVP of Software Engineering at Apple, was quoted in August deriding Windows activation.

Re:Just Wait...

[Overly Critical Guy]

If you really need a free, modern OS, rather than run something that clings to functionality through hacks, cheats, cracks and work-arounds, why not just bite the bullet and download a good desktop Linux distro?

Or get a Mac like most people are doing to get away from Windows. And some of us are getting Macs to get away from the hell that is Linux on the desktop!

Re:Just Wait...

[morcego]

Because Linux does not run Everquest

Can't it ?

and 99% of the other games I like to play on a regular basis.

Considering your Everquest example, I would say that at least 90% of them will run under Cedega.

Re:Just Wait...

[linuxrocks123]

Cedega runs Everquest. And World of Warcraft.

http://www.transgaming.com/

Hope this helps.

Re:Just Wait...

[AnyThingButWindows]

when Linux can have the type of compatibility with the every-day apps that Microsoft provides

None of my apps run on windows. Therefor windows is useless to me. Until the time comes when windows can run software like Soundtrack Pro, Final Cut, Shake, AppleWorks, VisualHub, MacTheRipper, Toast 7 Titaanium, Fire.app, Audio Hijack Pro, iPhoto, iWeb, and all my other every day applications, such as the tools I use remotely via SSH, then forget it. Windows isn't compatible at all. I don't think anyone here in this office has any use for Windows since it is almost worthless for what we do with Video and Audio.

When MS has the type of compatibility with every-day apps that OS X, and *BSD/Linux systems provide, maybe it will respectable OS. Until then, it is just overpriced junk that won't run anything.

Conveninent home OS that everybody can use

UNIX is still king regardless of what everybody says.

Re:Just Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just so you know, World of Warcraft works extremely well out of the box on Wine under Linux. Some minor configurations like setting WoW to use OpenGL mode may be necessary for best performance, but all in all it works so fast and flawlessly that I must say I'm amazed.

Re:Just Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

cause WoW is styyuuuupid and that person is styyyuuupid and we don't care what OS stupid people purchase

Re:Just Wait...

[porl]

wait, is linuc the singular of linux now?

Re:Just Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

Regardless of what the media has been harping on for a long time, and regardless of what system attackers have been saying about the "evil TPM protection" Apple uses, Apple is doing no TPM-related evil thing. In fact, Apple is doing no TPM-related cryptographic thing at all in Mac OS X. Yes, I know, there has been much talk of "TPM keys" and such, but there are no TPM keys that Apple is hiding somewhere.
More specifically, Apple simply does not use the TPM hardware. In Apple computer models that do contain a TPM, the hardware is available for use by the machine's owner. Of course, to use it you need a device driver, which Apple indeed doesn't provide. -- Trusted Computing for Mac OS X

(In short: you're some combination of idiot, liar, and asshole, depending on how much of your own bullshit you believe.)

Re:Just Wait...

[wakingrufus]

WoW runs with very little extra configuration under wine. so even that isn't a valid excuse :-)

Re:Just Wait...

[mikelieman]

What every-day application compatibility are you referring to?

Shouldn't you get a PS2 for playing games?

Re:Just Wait...

[XO]

"modern" OS, if you exclude the fact that it's built on a core design from the 70's, and then hacked up to the point where it's also twisted and mangled.

Re:Just Wait...

[jonadab]

> If playing WoW is one of your major activites

The English language does not contain sufficiently strong terminology to express how pathetic that sounds to people who have a life. It sounds pretty bad even if you just know someone who has a life, or have met someone who claims to know someone who has a life.

Re:Just Wait...

[jonadab]

> UNIX is still king regardless of what everybody says.

Dude, as long as it runs Emacs and Perl, it doesn't really matter what the OS is.

Re:Just Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, most of us who run Windows also like our OS to run on any hardware that we care to buy without spending hours reverse engineering config files. No, instead when something breaks, you simply reinstall - Brilliant!

Re:Just Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

WineX/Cedega has had support for Everquest under Linux for over 4 years:
http://www.transgaming.com/showthread.php?news=49
http://cedegawiki.sweetleafstudios.com/wiki/EverQu est

Re:Just Wait...

[triffid_98]

Hello! In the outside world, I am a simple geologist... but in here, I am Falcorn, Defender of the Alliance. I have braved the Fargo Deep Mine, defeated the Blood Fish at Gerard's Landing...

Re:Just Wait...

[walt-sjc]

I don't think you really want to go there...

The twisted and mangled part applies much more to Windows as it does Unix due to the origins - it just took less time. Do you really want to go into the gory details of all the twisting and mangling that has gone into windows in order to attempt to bolt on security and networking after the fact while trying to remain mostly backwards compatible?

Re:Just Wait...

[baadger]

Honestly, I'm going to laugh my ass off 6 months down the road when MS pushes out a mandatory WGA update, disguised as another 'critical update,' that nukes pirated installs. All these scam cracked/KMS/pirated Vista copies are going to lock-up, shut down and only be able to do one thing, display the phone number to call MS to purchase a legitimate key

Ohhhhhh, you mean like what happened with XP........no, .....wait..... my mistake. XP is still dead easy to pirate with widely known VLK's and WGA *doesn't stop shit*. Nm, i'm sure Vista Activation will work out just fine for Microsoft.

Re:Just Wait...

[repvik]

Linux sucks. Get over it. There's TONS of things people are used to doing on windows ("it just works") that require you to hack stuff in config files in Windows. Windows is like a swiss army knife. Linux is like a complete hardware store in your pocket. Your average mom don't want nor need a hardware store. *I* want a hardware store (I run linux on my desktop, laptop and various embedded devices).

Let it go for fucks sake. Linux sucks as a desktop compared to Windows and OSX. But it is a great tool if you _know what you are doing_.

Re:Just Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound as if Dual Booting never existed. I dual boot and use linux for homework and programming while leaving windows for some games (Linux has thousands of cool games). I would only use linux if wc3 world editor worked fine on WINE, cause warcraft III itself does.

Re:Just Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because it's one of the major activities you do on your COMPUTER, doesn't mean its one of the major activities in your LIFE. Some people aren't that addicted to the computer.

(I however admit I am addicted to both the computer and wow....but if I wasn't, I'd just be sitting on the couch watching TV, so it doesn't really matter).

Re:Just Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

Good job, resorting to an ad hominem attack. You've lost the argument.

Re:Just Wait...

[calculadoru]

Honestly, I'm going to laugh my ass off 6 months down the road when MS pushes out a mandatory WGA update, disguised as another 'critical update,' that nukes pirated installs

Er...you misunderestimate the 'will' part of 'where there's a will there's a way'.
Whatever disruption there may be, 't will only be temporary.
Trust me. I've seen it done before, many a time.

Re:Just Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

damn where the hell are my mod points!

Re:Just Wait...

[Binestar]

Nicely taken out of context. Lrn2Comprehend.

Re:Just Wait...

[Kingrames]

which distro?

I was getting really bizarre problems trying to get it to work in wine with Ubuntu.

Re:Just Wait...

[aliquis]

I've heard this for long but all I can say is that Warcraft III: TFT run like shit using ATIs drivers and Radeon 9200 under cedega compared to XP, this was expected thought. It was much faster using my GeForce 2 GTS which is an older and simplier card, but it was still crappier performance and ugglier look than in XP.

So I'll trust this when someone gives me some proofs, and screenshots.

Re:Just Wait...

[aliquis]

But FAT is shit and can't handle large files such as DVD images, but you can install Macdrive and then Windows will be able to use HFS+ (Mac OS X filesystem), and this filesystem is conveniently enough supported by Linux aswell so there you have it. Filesharing between Windows and Linux (And OS X if you want to) without using FAT.

Another good alternative is to use a fileserver using NFS or whatever, preferably running Solaris and ZFS.

Re:Just Wait...

[aliquis]

I think the TPM key in Macs are only used to validate that it's a Mac which you try to install the OS to and not to check that you have actually bought the OS or whatever. That and also the TPM key of Macs are known and the whole stuff have been cracked.

Re:Just Wait...

[AnonChef]

Ya.
This is what happend to me on my home PC. I used to be a dual boot guy user but now I don't bother.
With XP windows has gotten stable enough for me.
I have cygwin for most of my *nix cravings and wmvare for when that's not enough.

I use my puter for editing photos, watching movies and playing games.

Re:Just Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ubuntu Edgy and the latest wine from winehq.com

Just follow the guide in http://appdb.winehq.org/appview.php?iVersionId=560 6 or possibly the latest is nowadays in http://appdb.winehq.org/appview.php?iVersionId=601 3

Here's what I did:
- Copied some Windows fonts in the wine font directory so I could see the text in the wow installer
- Changed WoW to use OpenGL mode
- Changed some registry setting found in that guide for better performance

I think that's all I did. Works great, even though I have only 1,2GHz Duron & 256MB of RAM :)

Re:Just Wait...

[bongey]

Yes I admit the ati drivers suck sometimes under linux. The latest drivers from ati just don't work with my 9600 under linux, they do sorta , but the 8.28 work like a charm. I really think the issue on my machine isn't the drivers at all, the fps are very close, but I think it is the os. It seems that the windows process scheduler(Ie wow isn't getting priority for some reason) is doing something funny or it is related to the network stack(I think it is windows network stack sucks, that is why some nics bypass it,ie killer nic ). Windows bounces around with the fps highs in the 40-60 , lows in the 3-6 range, linux just doesn't do that, it is very annoying in pvp when you fps drops to 3-4 fps. I currently deleted the game from all my machines it is way too addicting , I will come back to it when I have more free time. I need to find the screen shots but I was running the deadmines instance under linux with an average fps of 50(highs in the 70s).

Link to the torrent.

[jZnat]

Brought to you by The Pirate Bay as usual. :)

Re:Link to the torrent.

[crossmr]

You only need to include the torrent for the version of Vista that works best with this as well ;)

Re:Link to the torrent.

[Firehed]

Something tells me this would have been one of those occasions where posting as an AC would have been a wise choice. Personally, I don't find a bit of Slashdot karma worth having the Long Baton of Microsoft forcefully inserted into an exit-only part of my body.

But, your call. I thought it was easy enough to find just by going to the top of the Top 100 list for Windows software at TPB ;)

Re:Link to the torrent.

[jZnat]

The mods never seem to browse at -1 like they're supposed to (and thus wouldn't see an AC post), and my karma never fluctuates anyhow, so I don't care about that.

Even better: thepiratebay!

[mr_luc]

Even better is that the torrent tracker referred to is The Pirate Bay -- who mocked microsoft's legal threats, resulting in Microsoft appearing to pull strings that lead to an unprecedented, although ultimately unsuccessful, raid on their servers.

So, when the first hacks for Vista start popping up, it's nice to know that I can rely on The Pirate Bay to host those .torrents for me!

Re:Even better: thepiratebay!

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Even better is that the torrent tracker referred to is The Pirate Bay -- who mocked microsoft's legal threats, resulting in Microsoft appearing to pull strings that lead to an unprecedented, although ultimately unsuccessful, raid on their servers.

It is commonly believed that the MPAA, not Microsoft, was responsible for the US State Department leaning on the right local ministers to get the Pirate Bay raided. For one thing, the MPAA prematurely ejaculated a press-release congratulating themselves for getting the Pirate Bay shut down, while Microsoft was mum on the event.

Re:Even better: thepiratebay!

[Anonymous Coward]

Could you tell me how many slashdotters it takes to get a +4 insightful?

I'm pretty sure it's less than 100% and I think I can count that high on one hand.

BTW, anyone know the percentage of slashdot readers that can moderate at a given time?

Re:Even better: thepiratebay!

[1u3hr]

Wow. And your comment is +4 Insightful. So apparently, Slashdotters are 100% behind software piracy

Yeah, because two or three people modded his post up, that means 100% of Slashdot readers agree with him. Including you.

Re:Even better: thepiratebay!

[KermodeBear]

Yeah, pretty lame for that comment to be moderated up, but hey - that's what meta-moderation is all about. Maybe the meta-mods will smack the original mods down a bit and they won't be able to mod up posts like that as often.

Maybe.

Re:Even better: thepiratebay!

[strider44]

Being against annoying and imposing DRM and copy protection doesn't mean you support piracy. Two people do not equate to the whole of Slashdot, the free software community, or, in fact, all of the world.

... idiot.

Re:Even better: thepiratebay!

[Sir Homer]

Wow, should Slashdot should castrate anyone who is against the notion of copyright law? Either make file sharing legal (the democratic method) or put the 50+ million people who do it in jail (the fascist method). I think we are headed toward the fascist method.

Re:Even better: thepiratebay!

[aliquis]

But of course this doesn't remove the DRM or the copy protection, and if you have actually bought Vista and want to activate it why not do it the right way instead of setting all this stuff up?

Also I think it's ok for the creators to try to protect their work.

Re:Even better: thepiratebay!

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

If you have actually bought Vista and want to activate it why not do it the right way instead of setting all this stuff up?

Maybe you bought it because you had to use it for your job, same reason most people bought previous generations of Windows.

Maybe you don't want to participate in the whole data collection inherent in MS's activation schemes. Maybe you want as little to do with MS as you absolutely have to.

I've purchased a laptop and a desktop that both came with XP preinstalled. The first thing I did was wipe their disks and install from a cracked bootleg ISO for exactly the above reasons. I paid for my copies and now I don't have to worry that MS is going to make an error and deactivate my installation or suffer a data breach on their registration database and share my personal info with a bunch of identity thieves.

Re:Even better: thepiratebay!

[BrynM]

So apparently, Slashdotters are 100% behind software piracy. I'll let John Carmack know that nobody around here will be paying him for his work anymore.

So if you mix an chicken and an orange, you get plywood? What? Your conclusion is as nonsensical as your argument.

First of all, if the post started with a score of one and got modded +4 to the maximum of 5 you're saying that those 4 moderators represent the over two million slashdot accounts? (or at least the 1,7170,889 that registered before you did - we'll keep it simple for you) Secondly, you conclude that not wanting to give Microsoft money somehow equates to not wanting to give Carmack money?

Frankly, I don't want to give MS any more money (though I don't want their products anymore either). I've gladly given id Software loads of cash. I'd estimate I've given them at least $500 already - AT LEAST. If John were standing next to me, I would gladly hand him the money in my wallet too because he's a good programmer, a good man and has been generous with his creations. He's given me quite a bit in the forms of entertainment, platforms to explore my own creativity and knowledge. I bet John wouldn't even accept the money handed straight to him from my wallet unless he needed it. In my book, I still owe him. Can you say the same for MS? (You estabilished the one to many comparison, not me.)

All of this accusatory bluster for a discussion about how, in fact, MS is actively shooting themselves in the foot. Tell me, when was the last time Carmack did that?

Next time you think of posting, think of your user name and spare us from the spuious FUD "Overly Critical Guy". Don't post until you can calm down and get off the soapbox.

Everyone else: I know I just fed a troll, but sometimes you just gotta put your foot down.

Re:Even better: thepiratebay!

[Anonymous Coward]

BTW, anyone know the percentage of slashdot readers that can moderate at a given time?

I think it's 0.002 cents per kilobyte.

Re:Even better: thepiratebay!

[Frizzle Fry]

your comment is +4 Insightful. So apparently, Slashdotters are 100% behind software piracy.

If his comment were +5 Insightful, would that mean that we are 125% behind piracy?

Re:Even better: thepiratebay!

[Technician]

Being against annoying and imposing DRM and copy protection doesn't mean you support piracy.

For me it's a compatibility issue. For the basement dwellers with only one PC and one portable player, DRM may be OK. For me it is not OK because DRM is a stamp of incompatibility. I finaly broke down and bought a flash based MP3 player. On the front of the package it clearly states it will play MP3 and WMA files. After using a knive to open the package I found my under $40 treasure mentions in the literature in the troubleshooting section that it will not play DRM WMA files. That is not a problem for me becasue I rejected the format outright for incompatibility. I love the player. It has an FM tuner, built in mic, does on the fly MP3 encoding from both. Requires no special software. Connects as a USB drive. It supports playlists and directories. You can export your own FM and microphone created MP3's. It has an SD card slot so it's built in 512 meg isn't a bad limit.

The only items on the wish list would have been a Mic and Line in jack. Other than that, it's perfect for my use. FYI, off obscure "Coby" on sale at Home Depot. Not bad for under $40.

Why would I even consider DRM files. I can't play them in most places.

Hey RIAA, Get a clue. The biggest installed base of music players and DVD players will play MP3's. Hint, Hint, Hint. Wanna sell some music to the masses instead of the eliete? Sell MP3's. The players are out there. The online content is not. Hint!

Godspeed, Microsoft

[Citizen of Earth]

Let's hope that Microsoft fixes this problem very quickly. It is important that all Microsoft users pay every last penny for their habit.

Re:Godspeed, Microsoft

[mugnyte]

You insensitive clod! Haven't they paid enough?! Think of the children!

Re:Godspeed, Microsoft

[Faylone]

YOU insestive clod! You want them to remain infected with MS?

For the love of God...

[Lord Kano]

Someone please post a link. Preferably a coral cache...

LK

Re:For the love of God...

[Anonymous Coward]

ed2k 1647486062|83D43FBAA4D92AB73BDF22036A93A295

Try again.

[Stumbles]

This is just another reason why anything dealing with software activation, DRM and it's ilk is a colossal waste of time and money.

Re:Try again.

[Anonymous Coward]

The purpose of DRM/Activation is to keep non-techies purchasing the products legitimately - not keep the die hard pirates away. Any method of complicated setup will keep the money flowing.

Re:Try again.

[morcego]

This is just another reason why anything dealing with software activation, DRM and it's ilk is a colossal waste of time and money.

I beg to disagree.

Lets imagine someone at Microsoft defending this idea, for a moment:

"So, if we don't have key activation, 90% of the copies of our product running on computers around the world will be pirated. On the other hand, with this key activation, only 70% of the copies will be pirated. That could mean a sales increase of 190%, with the other users migrating to other platforms."

Doesn't sound like a waste of neither time nor money. Remember they are a public traded company, so for them (and the stock holders) an 190% increase in sales is something VERY important.

it boggles the mind - Windows Genuine DISASTER

[toby]

...Why anyone would run their business (or hobby) on a system that is subject to DeActivation.

Defective by Design, indeed.

Re:it boggles the mind - Windows Genuine DISASTER

[istartedi]

Why anyone would run their business (or hobby) on a system that is subject to DeActivation

Hold on... Before we answer that we need to upload some more pictures to flickr.com. Then we need to update our blogs on MySpace and reply to some contact invites on LinkedIn.

And yes, an unfavorable change in the ToS on these sites is not as bad as deactivation. A complete loss of service appears unlikely at this stage; but you never know what might change. The bottom line? Unless you control your data, and store it in a format that can be easily converted to use with other Operating Systems or services, you are vulnerable.

Re:it boggles the mind - Windows Genuine DISASTER

[Bios_Hakr]

Flickr and MySpace are opening new avenues to business. Those ways of getting customers were not there before. It's like mana from heaven.

However, for a company to place an OS on the desktop of every individual, they need to ensure the new system is better than the last.

The first company to lose a day of work because of deactivation will be the nail in WGAs coffin. Either MS will release an anti-WGA patch, or everyone will go back to Win2k.

Re:it boggles the mind - Windows Genuine DISASTER

[Shawn is an Asshole]

What else will run the software and hardware the business needs?

Re:it boggles the mind - Windows Genuine DISASTER

[WML MUNSON]

...Why anyone would run their business (or hobby) on a system that is subject to DeActivation.

Why in gods name was this comment ever modded "funny?"

It's a really damned good question if you ask me.

Re:it boggles the mind - Windows Genuine DISASTER

[nine-times]

I've been saying this since Microsoft first started using activation: As an anti-piracy technique, it doesn't really work. If there's a chink in the activation-scheme's armor, pirates will find it, and you'll still see pirated versions of the OS all over the place. The people this really hurts is Microsoft's legitimate customers, who certainly bought Windows anyway because it came with their fracking machine. They should finally just cut this crap out, and focus on helping their customers.

Re:it boggles the mind - Windows Genuine DISASTER

[wyohman]

I think one of the biggest issues is the lack of media rejection. Back in the 80s when copy protection became rampant, the computer media (Byte, Computer Shopper, PC Mag, PC Week) led a concerted effort to educate users and rejected copy protection. Now it seems the old computer journalists have given up or become irrelevant (*cough* Dvorak *cough*).

Cheers.

Re:it boggles the mind - Windows Genuine DISASTER

[morcego]

Why anyone would run their business (or hobby) on a system that is subject to DeActivation.

I can think of a few reasons:

1) Because Microsoft convinced (with or without monetary arguments) the developer of the software your business need to only develop to that given platform

2) Because a IT manager have to report to the CEO, which knows nothing of computer, and trying to migrate to an unknown (to the CEO) platform can cost his job

3) Add "brown nosing points" to #2 above

4) Because the computer your company got already came with a license of that system

5) Because the computer manufacturer only support you while you are running that system

I'm sure, with a little effort, you can think of plenty other reasons.

Re:it boggles the mind - Windows Genuine DISASTER

[mrchaotica]

The first company to lose a day of work because of deactivation will be the nail in WGAs coffin. Either MS will release an anti-WGA patch, or everyone will go back to Win2k.

What'cha mean "go back," boy? Some of us saw XP's "activation" for what it was in the beginning, and never left Win2k at all!*

(*In terms of Windows, that is -- I did mostly supplant it with Linux and Mac OS, except for Windows-only games.)

Re:it boggles the mind - Windows Genuine DISASTER

[smash]

What'cha mean "go back," boy? Some of us saw XP's "activation" for what it was in the beginning, and never left Win2k at all!*

Here, here... the additional factor in my case is of course that Windows 2k (also, freebsd, linux, etc) would install on my system in the first place, and Windows XP won't possibly due to SATA driver issues. I didn't try too hard to solve it, because Win2k is better anyway...

And we are surprised why?

[mrpaco18]

It was inevitable that Vista Enterprise would be cracked in some way. Every version of Windows has been. In fact, I can't think of a single large-scale (scale as in cost) software that has not been cracked. No matter what any software vendor does, the dedicated pirates will always be one step ahead. Measures like product activation are only to stop widespread casual piracy, not piracy in its entirety.

Re:And we are surprised why?

[badboy_tw2002]

Which is good enough. If Joe 6pack has to jump through hoops to pirate, he might just buy the product. Even better, Joe 12pack (twice as smart) might even be more wary of searching sites because of a legitimate fear of fake pirate sites that have viruses.

In games this is even more prevalent - the goal of fighting piracy isn't to prevent the inevetable - somewhere somebody has enough spare time to crack your stuff, but to _delay_ it. If Johnny 6cola can't get his game right away, then he might have to suck it up and buy it. The most sucessful ones have locked out pirates for 30 days or so. If you've been waiting for months for a game, waiting another month might not be an option. (Some of those might be from pirates distributing a game which still has parts of it not working and crashes half way through - even better for publishers). Obviously this is unique to games, as other software publishers want to keep people out for good.

Re:And we are surprised why?

[Anonymous Coward]

The pirates I know are sort of pragmatic. They get what they can for free. If their only option is to buy it, they won't. I have a mix of xp & linux with a few bought and a few pirate apps on xp. I downloaded an iso that is supposedly vista just to have around, but I probably won't be installing it anytime soon. I was about 3 years late to the xp party. I understand what you're saying with delaying and all. But it's stupid and it won't get them much more sales. They're better off not wasting their time on DRM, and pricing their stuff in a range that is accessible. I'm certainly not going to pay for being treated that way. It might encourage them to continue.

I was on linux only for some time, learning to compile everything from scratch, and do everything that way. XP became a matter of convenience because it was so easy. It seems like some of the cracks are getting more difficult, and I bet I can survive without vista. But more likely I bet within a year or two there will be iso's floating around that make installing an illigitimate copy easier to install and run than being a legit paying customer penalized by MS's activation crap...

Re:And we are surprised why?

[badboy_tw2002]

But if you're not going to buy it anyways, what price is good enough? $20? $10? 5? It costs money to make these things no matter what. Again, you don't sound like a casual user. A casual user is someone who wants to play a game, and if its not on Bittorrent he might have to bite the bullet. Like frat guys at a Linux convention, they're here for the beer, not the source or speech. Put it another way: Two publishers put out two games at the same time. One has anti-copy protection, the other doesn't. Both cost $50. Our intrepid young gamer Johnny 6Cola has acquired $50 for his birthday and really really wants both games. The copy-free one is on bittorrent, the other is in the store. Which publisher would you rather be? Now in a month, both are on bittorrent, but games have a pretty short shelflife compared to Word or something similar. Another reason why its a different animal as far as copy-protection goes than other software. And for the time being MS still has a secure system against casual cracks. You can survive without Vista, but maybe someone wants it for XY or Z feature (or the next version of their favorite software might only support Vista, etc). If it takes several hours and a spare box to set this up, they might just bite the bullet and buy it. If the barrier to entry is 5 minutes and is 0 risk (no viruses, etc) all you've got is the moral issue to protect you, and despite the BSA's best efforts people still don't see taking money from Microsoft as wrong :)

Re:And we are surprised why?

[moriya]

So while combating piracy is a goal for some of these game publishers, what they do not realize is that each game they're releasing is likely giving these people more inconveniences than simplifying the process of loading up a game and go. Instead, we are constantly bugged by the game's insisting request to have the game disc in the drive to properly start up.

When I first got Battlefield 2, I kept the Play disc in the drive. But I often found myself loading up the game frequently. It got to the point where I finally took out the disc, and noticed a bubble spot that wasn't there before. Due to the drive heating up the disc so much, the paint started to come off. Is this something that we really need? This is a danger to the gamer's investment because if the disc is lost, you cannot reinstall it or worst yet, you cannot play or start the game up anymore. Many of these online multi-player games have some form of online authentication system in place. What else do they need? To an extent, that pretty much proves we have proper licenses to the games we purchased at the store. Why bug us more with CD checks and encrypted sectors on disc to prevent us from making a backup to protect the original discs? I simply want to load the game up, log in, and jump into the action.

Re:And we are surprised why?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, I'm not a casual user. I'm generally pissed off that they treat adults like children, or have an attitude to treat people as criminals or enemy combatants. Like someone's screwdriver/rent a hammer post above in a thread that is higher on the page. I may as well invoke Godwin and talk about Nazi corporations and fascism. The tools and O/S should be designed to serve the user and be out of the way. A lot of this stuff is designed to set arbitrary fences and restrictions. I know this general argument gets beaten to death here, so it is what it is. I'd pay $50 or even maybe $100 for a good O/S. But I wouldn't pay $0.10 for Vista. I'm still debating what to do. I may go Mac, but I'm still undecided. I don't believe that copy protection works, at least not in the general interest of society. Restrictions and centralized power are bad IMO. Even if there is some short-term financial hurt. There has to be a better way to structure things that allows for open free exchange and people to make a living without turning 50+% of society into harded felons. I think the current state of things just shows that monopoly corporations have to much arrogance and power. I'm going to try and not feed that beast. In the long run I think the restrictions and criminalization will impede and hurt human progress... Cheers :)

Re:And we are surprised why?

[smash]

Which is good enough. If Joe 6pack has to jump through hoops to pirate, he might just buy the product

On the contrary, if "joe sixpack" has to jump through hoops to run his legitimately purchased product, perhaps he won't bother.

I'm fully prepared to pay for an O/S (have purchased several variants of Linux, previous microsoft O/S, etc) however i'm not willing deal with an O/S that constantly phones home to verify that I am allowed to run it.

Paying for a product is supposed to be less painful than simply running the pirate version, not the reverse...

Re:And we are surprised why?

[jonadab]

> In fact, I can't think of a single large-scale (scale as in cost) software
> that has not been cracked.

This is peripheral to your point, but Vista is not large-scale (scale as in cost) software, not by a longshot.

Software that's really expensive will get you for more per seat in incremental aftermarket component sales alone in a single year than you'll ever pay for Vista during its entire lifetime as a product, even if you buy the Superlative Edition. At work I deal with midrange systems, which are *much* cheaper than the really expensive stuff. We're a small site (about twenty seats), and when we were looking at migrating from our old system to something a bit newer, the sales teams had me on speed dial for most of six months. There ended up being ten thousand dollars' *difference* between the quotes for the two main systems we looked at, which are both in the same general price range. (Yes, we went with the cheaper one, but only because we were looking at potential budget cuts at the time. Otherwise we might not have.)

Really large-scale (scale as in cost) software is much more expen$ive.

Re:And we are surprised why?

[baadger]

Joe Sixpack gets geek friend Steve Magrew to pirate Windows for them. Just because some people don't have the knowledge or determination to pirate software, doesn't mean they aren't immoral enough to ask someone who does.

I have had several friends who aren't really that techy orientated approach me about upgrading their machines from XP to Vista (and I turned them all away saying to wait atleast 6 months).

Um...

[tsanth]

I daresay you're sidestepping GP's points:

1) Linux does not run a critical set of games which he wants to play.
2) Linux apps lack the kind of application compatibility that he and his family are looking for.

Let's accept that a console is superior to a PC for gaming, and let's accept that Linux is preferable to Windows for general computing tasks. GP's two points are still unresolved: he wants to play that particular set of games (presumably not available on either a console or on Linux) and he wants compatibility for a specific set of applications (presumably Windows-only applications without equivalent Linux alternatives/ports).

Re:Um...

[CortalUX]

How about WINE? I know they break compatability with games now and then, but the majority of the time games work pretty soon after they come out, or update.

Wine is an Open Source implementation of the Windows API on top of X and Unix. Think of Wine as a compatibility layer for running Windows programs. Wine does not require Microsoft Windows, as it is a completely free alternative implementation of the Windows API consisting of 100% non-Microsoft code, however Wine can optionally use native Windows DLLs if they are available. Wine provides both a development toolkit for porting Windows source code to Unix as well as a program loader, allowing many unmodified Windows programs to run on x86-based Unixes, including Linux, FreeBSD, Mac OS X, and Solaris.

Re:Um...

[mojodamm]

Is that before or after they terminate your WoW account? ;) You can flip over a screwdriver to pound in nails, but why not just use the hammer?

Re:Um...

[CortalUX]

I didn't realize your account gets terminated for things like that [not disbelieving you, but if it does?] - I don't play WoW - don't stab me with your Warcarft Fan +1 !!!!! But yeah, that sounds like a valid point.

Re:Um...

[Maxo-Texas]

It's a classic catch 22.

99% of their accounts are on windows so they focus on windows.

99% of their accounts are on windows BECAUSE they focus on windows.

---
I have the same everquest situation.

Openoffice, firefox, azureus, audacity, gimp, etc are slowly removing any need for windows other than this.

Re:Um...

[mojodamm]

http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/15/ 1652222 They were recently (and rightly) unbanned, but it created quite a stir as you can probably imagine.

Re:Um...

[GrizlyAdams]

They will not terminate your WoW account for running under linux if you use cedega. The recent banning was an unfortunate accident and has been resolved afaik. Cedega runs a great many games including recent titles like WoW, GuildWars, and I believe Half-Life 2.

Re:Um...

[linuxrocks123]

Cedega runs Everquest, WoW, Halo, and I think Halo 2. I don't have personal experience with it but other people have gotten it to work (according to Google).

Re:Um...

[DarthDevilous]

There was an example where some guy was doing something similar for a long time (bashing the same creature over and over to increase his stave skills or something) and apparently he was then banned due to bot-like activity + a suspicious process list (i.e. an empty one, as wine does not list other processes when requested). Thats the story I remember, dunno if there were others.

Re:Wishful thinking

[sumday]

yeah, because women will blow any guy if his wang is large enough. You sure understand females, buddy.

Re:Oh yes, i'm waiting.

[shodai]

http://www.autopatcher.com Problem solved. Oh, and it's much better than Windows Update, too. Imagine that.

I just heard this

[krray]

As heard by Nelson Muntz from the Simpsons, "Haha!"

Re:Wishful thinking

[shawngarringer]

They will if you have a big wallet to match!

Alas, the part of the puzzle I am missing... :(

Windows Vista Cracked?

[ImaNihilist]

Inconceivable!

Re:Windows Vista Cracked?

[Jugalator]

And once again, before it's widely available. (I don't consider MSDN for their subscribers wide availability, really)

You'd think this sent a message...

Now, all that's left is an even more annoying activation system for legit customers.

Re:Windows Vista Cracked?

[RxScram]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:Windows Vista Cracked?

[westcoast philly]

don't worry, I doubt it was sarcasm.

Re:Windows Vista Cracked?

[Rahga]

don't worry, I doubt it was sarcasm.

I can't compete with you physically, and you're no match for my brains.

Re:Windows Vista Cracked?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hereby ban any and all quotes from The Princess Bride. For some reason, in the last 12 months, everyone went and saw this film and started quoting that one moderately funny line that nobody who didn't see the film understands. Enough.

Re:Windows Vista Cracked?

[westcoast philly]

Oh come on, don't spoil it for the other kids... I've been referred to the script, I've seen that movie a few times and should've picked up on it. I need to watch more old movies.

Re:Windows Vista Cracked?

[westcoast philly]

touche, mon frere!

Re:Windows Vista Cracked?

[Junior J. Junior III]

You keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means.

Interesting twist on the Vista Edition

[Jugalator]

An interesting twist from this is that the most feature-rich Vista Ultimate Edition may not be the most warezed one after all. Because these aren't supporting KMS activation, unlike Enterprise and Business who were both intended for this use. However, for a pirate, that may not matter much, as the benefits of Vista Home Basic/Ultimate (= home/entertainment-oriented software) is probably quite easily outweighed by already available software, often free.

Re:Interesting twist on the Vista Edition

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

An interesting twist from this is that the most feature-rich Vista Ultimate Edition may not be the most warezed one after all. Because these aren't supporting KMS activation, unlike Enterprise and Business who were both intended for this use.

Somebody will probably figure out how to drop the right DLLs from the Enterprise edition into any other edition to make it do KMS.

Memo to Hackerz

[Anonymous Coward]

Hackerz: Microsoft will patch up any hole you tell them about. Why don't you sit on this until *after* Vista is released.

Oh right. You want to release it this century.

The only thing that comes to mind is...

[Morky]

..muahahahahahahaha. Ha.

Re:Wishful thinking

[Anonymous Coward]

OffTopic:
Hey you've got the lowest "member id number" I've seen on here so far :) Your Slashdot penis must be huge :D

ROTFLMAO

[MoxFulder]

Best Soviet comment ever...

Re:ROTFLMAO

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Why, thank you, sir. I admire your oonerspism!

Re:ROTFLMAO

[Anonymous Coward]

lookup Spoonerism.

rofl

[Anonymous Coward]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA awesome.

Re:Wishful thinking

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Taco is UID 1...

I signed up the same day, 'tho'.

Why?

[Belial6]

"You can flip over a screwdriver to pound in nails, but why not just use the hammer?"

because the screwdriver manufacturer hasn't installed a "Feature" that makes the tool cease to function, forcing you to call the hammer manufacturer to ask permission to regain use of that hammer you bought. All the while knowing that at some point, the hammer manufacturer is going to decide they want to sell their new hammers, so they will stop giving permission to the old hammer owners to keep using their purchased hammers.

The real question would be, "Why would you buy a screwdriver, when you can rent a hammer?"

Re:Why?

[djbckr]

so they will stop giving permission to the old hammer owners to keep using their purchased hammers.

Now, I'm realizing that I'll probably get flamed for this, but here goes anyway...

You did *not* purchase a hammer, you bought a license to *use* a hammer at the manufactures discretion.

Unfortunately, that's how software sales works now. I hate it.

Re:Why?

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

You did *not* purchase a hammer, you bought a license to *use* a hammer at the manufactures discretion.

Unfortunately, that's how software sales works now. I hate it.

Says who? If I go to a store right now and buy a copy of windows, there IS an actual copy of the software on a disc in that box along with that license, is there not?

Re:Why?

[mojodamm]

See, I suppose this is why I differ from the /. "The screwdriver is God!" groupthink. I've NEVER had a problem with my hammer being taken away. I've never been forced to upgrade. Sure, I've purchased larger hammers due to my desire to run certain applications, but it was not becase I was suddenly denied my right to use my hammer.

I'd be surprised to hear that such a thing is anything more than FUD because people don't like the hammer-maker, or that it affects a significant portion of the people that actually use the tool as intended.

Of course, if you don't go to the manufacturer, and instead buy your hammer off some shady dealer off the internet, you can't rightfully complain that your hammer is sub-standard. They call them 'cracked' for a reason...

Re:Why?

[mrchaotica]

That's what they claim, but it's still, in reality, bullshit. You bought and paid for it -- with the store presenting it as a "sale" -- without reading or signing any kind of contract or license. Therefore, it is a sale and you own it.

The idea of "licensing" it only becomes true because you believe it.

Re:Why?

[Belial6]

The reason you have NEVER had a problem with your hammer being taken away is because XP is the first 'hammer' to have a self destruct mode. While false positives are a known fact, that is not what I am talking about. I'm talking about the fact that periodically Windows needs to be reinstalled. Yes, XP is dramatically more stable than 9x was, but yes, even XP needs to be reinstalled if you do any significant amount of loading and unloading of software. One day, MS is going to decide that XP is end of life. Then they are going to stop authenticating XP. When that happens, what you have installed will be the end of the line.

Re:Why?

[Belial6]

And that is exactly it. If I am just buying a license, then those who are "selling" it are committing fraud. If I see and ad that says a product is for "Sale", go into a store and see a sign under the product that says "Sale", go to the register, pay for the product and get a "Sales" receipt... For the manufacturer of the product to still own that product, SOMEONE must have committed fraud.

Re:Why?

[ScrappyLaptop]

Wait a sec...wasn't there a recent ruling that essentially said that cracks needed to keep unsupported software running are legal? How does that play against my pc being "unsupported" after the third hardware upgrade? At that point you could argue that since the system will not run without reactivation and a crack to keep it running is legal. Keep in mind that this requires an interesting interpretation of "unsupported", but still an arguable one.

Re:Why?

[mojodamm]

The thing that I'm not understanding (excuse my ignorance on the subject, please) is that I've done countless re-installs of XP on numerous computers, and I've never been asked to 'validate'. Is this a 'feature' of XP Home Edition, because in that case I can understand where you're coming from since I only have experience with Pro. Forced obsolescence DOES suck, but honestly I go through it more with graphic cards than operating systems.

But if you're basically saying that M$ will in some hypothetical distant time, stop this 'authentication' service that I've never been asked to use, then I don't see a strong need to change my OS to anything else in the meantime. I personally (and I know MANY people would argue against this) don't see the benefits of changing to a *nix OS when my hammer seems to be working fine. But if you can point me in the direction of an easy to follow, easy to install, easy to operate *nix-based OS that will run my applications (games, audio-authoring, multimedia) in a stable, user-friendly environment, I'd be happy to look into it. I'm not a WIN fanboi, but it's the easiest thing I've found for the 'casual' user.

Re:Why?

[Belial6]

If you have not been asked to authenticate, you would be running a corporate or pirate(cracked) version of XP. Retail versions, both boxed and pre-installed, require authentication within 30 days or the system will no longer function. Graphics cards are not 'forced' obsolescence. There is nothing in the graphics card that is designed to self destruct after a period of time. XP does have a self destruct feature.

Re:Why?

[mojodamm]

Are you talking about the 'Windows Genuine Advantage' program? If that's the case, it's not a mandatory program, you just can't receive any updates from the MS site. But if someone doesn't have legitimate software to begin with, I don't see how having to find illegitimate updates would be an issue for them.

Although I'm not in favor of overly restrictive anti-piracy programs, I don't think it's quite as dastardly an issue as the MS crowd makes it out to be. False positives suck in any such endeavor, but just like in all media-covered things, I think the negative aspects are blown out of proportion. I've never met anyone who had a problem with it; have you?

Now with graphics cards, I agree that it's not 'forced' per se. But as the game developers continue to push the envelope graphically, if you choose to play the games you also have to fork over the cash for the card that can play it. From my experience, it's the gaming community that drives this though, so we've only ourselves to blame. So, it's not forced, but the game developers and graphic card manufacturers can be highly persuasive ;)

Re:Why?

[julesh]

That's what they claim, but it's still, in reality, bullshit. You bought and paid for it -- with the store presenting it as a "sale" -- without reading or signing any kind of contract or license. Therefore, it is a sale and you own it.

What were you buying though? A box, with a disc in it, and if you're really lucky a manual or two. Did the store actually specifically state you'd have the right to use the software on the disc? They don't usually. And if they did, they were misrepresenting the sale, and you can take it up with them and get your money back. The store aren't allowed to sell you the right to use the software; their contract with M$ doesn't allow them to.

The idea of "licensing" it only becomes true because you believe it.

No, it becomes true because the courts decide to enforce it. And believe me, they do.

Re:Why?

[walt-sjc]

The right is implied, as in I bought a bag that contained a loaf of bread. I have the right to eat that bread, process it, and shit it out in a slightly altered state.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's true, and always has been.

But in the past, when you bought the hammer license, it said it was for the use of one person at one time on one nail at a time, all of which seemed pretty reasonable. Now, they have this awkward Rube Goldburg-like contraption encasing the hammer in a metal shield and special grip to mechanically ensure that only one person can hold the hammer at a time, and only one nail can be struck by the hammer at a time. If the contraption detects a violation of any of these constraints, the hammer turns the consistency of jello and displays a little message saying: "Please contact Acme Manufacturing to renew your license". The same feature must also be re-enabled every six months, you are only allowed to use the hammer in two successive houses (changed after huge complaints by users), and the system has been known to spontaneously and erroneously detect license violations in the middle of a job, requiring you to buy a new one.

Thanks to the fallible technology used to enforce the license, this hammer is now an unreliable and inflexible piece of crap.

Re:Why?

[mrchaotica]

Did the store actually specifically state you'd have the right to use the software on the disc?

What are you, stupid? Do stores "specifically state" that you have the right to wear clothes you buy? Do stores "specifically state" that you have the right to eat the food you buy? Do stores "specifically state" that you have the right to read the books you buy?

When I buy a box with a disc in it, that mans I can do anything I want to with it -- look at it, eat it, throw it like a frisbee, and read the bits off it! And any kangaroo court that thinks otherwise can kiss my ass!

Besides, I dare you to cite one single instance (that wasn't subsequently overturned) of a court enforcing an EULA that wasn't printed on the outside of the box or otherwise presented to the buyer before sale. Because I believe you're a fucking liar.

Re:Why?

[Skuld-Chan]

Does this hold true if I rip off code licensed under gpl?

Re:Why?

[Belial6]

If you make a business transaction, and knowingly go into that transaction with no intent of keeping up your end of the deal, yes, it would apply to GPL'ed software too.

Re:Why?

[julesh]

What are you, stupid? Do stores "specifically state" that you have the right to wear clothes you buy? Do stores "specifically state" that you have the right to eat the food you buy? Do stores "specifically state" that you have the right to read the books you buy?

No, but there isn't a law that prevents you from wearing clothes without their designer's permission, or from eating food without the consent of its manufacturer. Or reading a book without a contract with its author.

However, most computer programs are designed to require installation. This involves making a copy of the program. Making a copy of a computer program is illegal, unless it comes under one of the standard exemptions from copyright. Loading and executing a program in memory is (in the US) one such exemption. Installing it on your hard disk, however, isn't.

Besides, I dare you to cite one single instance (that wasn't subsequently overturned) of a court enforcing an EULA that wasn't printed on the outside of the box or otherwise presented to the buyer before sale. Because I believe you're a fucking liar.

"For every game at issue in this litigation except for Diablo, the outside packaging of the game
states that use of the game is subject to a EULA, and that use of Blizzard's Battle.net service is subject
to the Battle.net TOU. The terms of the EULAs and TOU themselves do not appear on the outside
[...]
Blizzard asserts that the
EULAs and TOU are enforceable contracts. Defendants assert that the EULAs and TOU are not
contracts because under Missouri law there was no agreement between the parties.9 Defendants argue
that the only agreement between the parties is the offer to sell the software and the defendants'
acceptance by purchase of the software. Also, defendants contend that the terms of the EULAs and
TOU were not presented at the time of purchase. The defendants assert that if a contract exists, it is
unenforceable because it is unconscionable.
[...]
The Court finds that the license agreements are enforceable contracts under both California
and Missouri law. California courts have enforced end user license agreements, which are valid under
California law. See Adobe Sys. Inc. v. One Stop Micro, Inc., 84 F.Supp.2d 1086, 1089-93 (N.D. Cal.
2000) (end user license agreement valid under California law); Hotmail Corp. v. Van$Money Pie,
Inc., No. C-98-20064, 1998 WL 388389, at *6 (N.D. Cal. 1998) (applying California law, plaintiff
likely to prevail on breach of contract claim regarding clickwrap agreement).
[...]
Defendants state that the EULAs
and TOU are additional terms which they rejected. Defendants contend that is unfair for them to pay
$49.99 for the games and then be unable to install them or access Battle.net without assenting to the
EULA and TOU.
The Court finds the EULAs and TOU are enforceable under the UCC.
[...]
A sale
consists in the passing of title from the seller to the buyer. Mo. Rev. Stat. 400.2-106(1) (2000).
When defendants purchased the games, they bought a license to use the software, but did not buy the
software. Defendants' argument parallels the "first sale doctrine," although defendants do not use this
term.
Under the first sale doctrine, "a sale of a lawfully made copy terminates a copyright holder's
authority to interfere with subsequent sales or distribution of that particular copy."
packaging.
[...]
Defendants do not produce sufficient evidence demonstrating that
title and ownership of the games passed to them. Therefore, the Court finds that the first sale doctrine
is inapplicable here."

(Davidson & Associates Inc. et al v Internet Gateway et al; US District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division; No. 4:02-CV-498 CAS - confirmed in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Re:Why?

[julesh]

Yes, but there isn't a law against eating bread. There is a law against copying software.

If I go and buy a car, does that give me the right to drive it without a licence?

Re:Why?

[mink]

At work, with a Pro license (not corporate), they added 512MB ram to my desktop and when it came back up, it demanded to be re-activated.

rater pirate Vista than take a free OS...

[Anonymous Coward]

has a lot to be said about it.

Just look at the sheer numbers of downloads for Windows XP and every other Windows OS.
The facts speak for themselve.

Microsoft.Windows.Vista.Local.Activation.Server-MG

[Odiumjunkie]

Microsoft.Windows.Vista.Local.Activation.Server-Me lindaGates.torrent

unlike windows xp and volume activation 1.0 windows vista doesnt have any corporate
keys which will permanently activate it. volume activation 2.0 requires a corporate
user to either do a one time activation through microsoft servers (mak) or companies
can host a local activation server which does not talk to microsoft (kms). the only
difference is kms requires re-activation once every 180 days. however as long as
theres a local kms server its simple to keep windows activated. this release is a
vmware image of a permanently activated kms server which allows local activation of
windows vista business/enterprise edition. volume activation 2.0 is only built into
those two editions.

install vista business/enterprise edition with the key [removed, check .nfo].

using the latest vmware workstation, boot the image. disable vmware firewall.

on the non vm vista right click the command prompt icon and run as admin. type ...

cscript c:\windows\system32\slmgr.vbs -skms vm_vista_ip

cscript c:\windows\system32\slmgr.vbs -ato

windows should now be activated.

to check activation status type ...

cscript c:\windows\system32\slmgr.vbs -dlv

tested using echos windows vista enterprise and vmware workstation 5.5.3 but seems to
have issues with the billgates windows vista business.

"MelindaGates" hack?

[XoXus]

The "MelindaGates" hack? Is that because people are getting sick of being screwed by Bill?

Re:"MelindaGates" hack?

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

I love the name. The irony of Melinda and Bill Gates and their charitable ways vs Microsoft and their overpriced DRM anti consumer rights OS.

Re:"MelindaGates" hack?

[dillee1]

Melinda is Billy's wife.
Think who screwed little Billy.

Very interesting

[empaler]

That is actually very interesting.

However, given the nature of their work, I'd guess they don't use the newest OS...

Funny that MoxFulder should point this out?

Re:Very interesting

[astrashe]

You're right. They're not early adopters. They do painstakingly difficult code audits, and certify products for use years after they've come out.

This is a non-issue for a long time.

Re:Very interesting

[Zantetsuken]

I would think it would depend on what level of the organization the OS is for - the secretaries for the lower end might end up with the crappy Dell machines (which in a year or so will be loaded with Vista) that get bought every year or 2 just to use up the budget (so it doesn't get cut from not using it). However, on the higher, more secure, secret, etc end I've no doubt as you said that the code has been looked over down to the binary level of each character in the source, and the binary level in compiled code, etc, etc...

At that point, wouldn't it be easier to use an open-source unix-type system (unix, linux, bsd) and customize the code to high-heaven?

Shhhh

[empaler]

Shhhh

So what _does_ Vista actually secure?

[msobkow]

The DRM module doesn't block unsigned drivers, allowing injection of attack code.

The license module has been spoofed, which means it's not protecting Microsoft's revenue.

Does Vista protect anything other than media restrictions imposed by producers?

Re:So what _does_ Vista actually secure?

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

1234567891011121314151617181920

Re:So what _does_ Vista actually secure?

[tkrotchko]

"Does Vista protect anything other than media restrictions imposed by producers?"

Let's just say it protects everything is was designed to protect. To a certain extent.

Re:So what _does_ Vista actually secure?

[julesh]

The DRM module doesn't block unsigned drivers, allowing injection of attack code.

Do you have a reference for that? Everything I've seen (e.g. this) suggests that the DRM module shuts down, prevent playing of licensed content, in the presence of unsigned drivers.

Re:So what _does_ Vista actually secure?

[Bert64]

Well, Yes...
If it becomes too hard to pirate windows, then of those millions of people who run pirated copies, many will stick with older versions, and some will move to linux or pirated macosx... Either way, it reduces the marketshare of vista.
Just think, where would microsoft be without piracy? Most of asia would probably be running linux by now.

Re:So what _does_ Vista actually secure?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's BS. it's only that MS could not find a way to make Windows practically unpiratable but on the other hand easy to install. It's easy to crack Windows products for that reason. If their engineers clever enough to find a way to prevent cracks they would implement it. Increasing market share w/ pirated copies are not giving Windows apart from headache after 95% market penetration. It's just that MS engineers are not clever enough to design a decent system.

Re:So what _does_ Vista actually secure?

[Bert64]

Do you really think they would ever have gotten 95% of the market if it weren't for piracy?

Re:So what _does_ Vista actually secure?

[OfficialReverendStev]

That's it. That's just freaking it. I've used Windows since I first got a computer in '95. I was a MS zealot for years. Not that I'm one of the uninformed; far from it. Hell, I'm starting my own computer repair business. I've never cared for Linux but you know what? Once XP ceases being useful to me I'm making the switch. God damn it just let me use my freaking computer!

Re:Microsoft.Windows.Vista.Local.Activation.Server

[Anonymous Coward]

You sir, win an internet.

Sometimes the irony is awesome...

[empaler]

I downloaded parts of 'Call of Juarez' to part seed (Ratio Whoring). Then, after having seen some screen shots, I thought "what the hell", and set it to fetch the rest.
After playing through the game, I decided that I had to own that game.
Also, I'm buying a copy for my friend this Christmas.

the point of KMS

[JediJorgie]

This does not reduce the value of KMS to corporate users. The value of KMS over traditional VLA keys is the fact that it protects the specific keys that are registered to a specific corporate customer. Even if you get your hands on a KMS activated system, there is no license information on the system to copy and pass around.

I have no idea if MS has a way to deal with this, folks are not just passing around a VLA keys that would then get blocked and force the orginal owner of the key to reset the keys on all their machines.

Most people (even the ones slimy enough to pirate software) are not going to keep around a multi GB vm to they can re-activate their system every 180 days just to get a version of Vista that does not even have Media Center or Movie Maker HD.

Re:the point of KMS

[simonbp]

Speak for yourself; Media Center and Movie Maker are useless, and a few gigs is a small price to pay (relative to Vista license)...

Heck, you can just burn it on a dvd if yiu need the space...

Simon ;)

Not Possible

[bluethundr]

But..but..but..I thought Vista was unhackable!

Trust your feelings. You know this to be true.

MOD parent FUNNY

[crossmr]

99% of the games? You're kidding right?

Re:MOD parent FUNNY

[Anonymous Coward]

Absoutely not. Apart from UT2004, Doom3, and Quake 4, a handfull of OS fps's and another handful games that can be played through wine, 99% of commercial games do not work in Linux. If you like fps-games, you're probably safe with Linux, and the WoW works too, but if you like, say, adventures, rts'es, city-building games, race games like Need for Speed, the Sims, and all the rest, you outta luck.

Re:MOD parent FUNNY

[kimvette]

99% of games he is aware of are:

  - Tetris
  - Super Tetris
  - That cool puzzle game with the Apple logo

Re:MOD parent FUNNY

[aliquis]

Yes he must be since there probably aren't even 99 games for the Mac and if that is true there are waaaaaaaaaaay more than 1 game running in Windows which doesn't run on a Mac.

But the most popular titles such as Quake, Warcraft, WOW, Unreal and C&C runs on Macs, but that is more or less it I think. I don't think for example HF2 does so all CS gamers are lost on Macs.

Thought to me those games are enough I think, HF2 would be fun to.

The reason I haven't switched to Mac yet is that Apple always tend to make shitty hardware and always cheap out on the low end model to force it's buyer to opt for a much more expensive middle or top end model. I wanted to get a Macbook Pro but I'm affraid the 128MB vram will be to little for me using dual screen, leopard with core image + core animation, occasional gaming and if I want to install Vista and run Aero 3D, so I think I'll wait for yet another revision and hope that they will have 256MB vram in all models then, but who knows.
The middle model do have 256MB vram but I would be paying around $300 for 7% faster CPU aswell which I have no intrest in at all. Imho pretty retarded to put in the worst/best CPU available and then mediocre GPU, and also to cheap out on the GPU in the low end model when the 256MB version can cost what? Max $40 more?

What about Windows Genuine Advantage?

[Jugalator]

While this may bypass activation, which is the Big Thing, what about WGA?

I'm only aware of cracks for XP so far, but maybe these work for Vista as well?

The thing is that MS has ramped up the effects from WGA authenticity failure a lot in Vista to make it hardly usable, contrary to before when you'd just miss out on a few extras from Microsoft Update.

Malware in pirated software? Right.

[Esteanil]

Actually, these days you're more likely to catch malware off of legitimate purchases (CDs, games containing StarForce, etc) than off a decent pirate site. (Torrent sites in particular tend to kill off torrents containing malware).

Isn't it ironic?

Re:Malware in pirated software? Right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if you're careful to only get your pirate software from community-vetted sources such as torrents. Shady cracks and serials sites, once one of my old standbys, are now so infested with malware that I no longer dare visit them at all.

Re:Malware in pirated software? Right.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're overestimating the ability of people and virus scanners to catch viruses. Okay, sure, if it tries to wipe your computer as soon as you install the warez'd software, it'll be taken down immediately, but what if waits a month and then silently rootkits your system?

Score one for the Pirates

[Araxen]

It's actually more than one but either way I bet M$ and everybody coming up with these copy protection schemes have to think to themselves..."We always lose this war against the Pirates and the Hackers. Why do we even bother?"

Re:Score one for the Pirates

[julesh]

It's actually more than one but either way I bet M$ and everybody coming up with these copy protection schemes have to think to themselves..."We always lose this war against the Pirates and the Hackers. Why do we even bother?"

Because in this case, they've still achieved what they set out to do. Of course they knew that somebody would crack it. They probably knew exactly where the weak point was -- I was wondering only a couple of days ago if somebody had achieved it via this route yet, and I'm sure I'm not alone in knowing this was the way to do it. So if I knew it, with almost zero specialist knowledge of how Vista works, I'm sure MS knew it.

But the point of Activation and WGA and all that shit isn't to make Windows unpiratable. Frankly, MS don't want that. They know that their pirated userbase is huge, and that their huge userbase is what makes Windows valuable. They don't want to make running a pirated version of Windows hard enough to persuade all those users to switch -- whether they do it to Mac or to Linux or whatever.

What they do want to do is make it hard enough that a small proportion of them, the "soft core" so to speak, give up and buy a copy. Because running the crack is just too hard.

And in this case, I think they may have succeeded. The crack requires you to regularly run VMWare, with a virtual PC running an instance of Windows Server inside it -- that is going to use up a substantial chunk of disk space and of RAM. So people will need bigger disks and more memory to compensate. If I'm going to have to spend £50 upgrading my PC to run the crack, I'm going to consider spending £100 on a legit copy of the system I'm trying to crack instead. And some people might decide that's the better option.

This was cracked so fast that...

[zappepcs]

you would swear it must be open source?

Why would any government agency, or anyone else, pay for this? There seems to be absolutely NO security... why pay, you get as good or better for free with F/OSS... wow

Re:This was cracked so fast that...

[mrchaotica]

There seems to be absolutely NO security...

On the contrary, there is negative security! Since you can't see the source code, there's no way to be certain that Microsoft itself (or a rogue programmer working there) hasn't put in any kind of backdoors or spyware or such. In a sane world, everyone including government agencies would realize that closed-source software like Windows can only be a liability.

Apples and pears

[empaler]

If you can't even control the hard drive access on your own god damned computer because your OS has been deactivated, who cares about Flickr and all that crap?
Besides, anyone with half a brain would never count on a service like that. SPF.

Re:Apples and pears

[istartedi]

If you can't even control the data in you own god damned account because your account has been deactivated, who cares about MS and all that crap?

Get it?

Besides, anyone with half a brain would never count on a service like that. SPF.

I think you'd be surprised. "SPF"? Sorry, I'm not up on all the latest text-speak. Anyway, the point is that any service delivered over the network can grab you by the balls just as much as this MS business can. The mechanism may be different, but the outcome is the same. The silver lining is that in both cases, the services are limited in how far they can crack down, based on the negative PR and loss of business it would cause. You can also control the damage by backing up your data in an open format. Web-based services like (blogs, picture sites with categorization and metadata) don't tout their ability to convert to open formats any more than say, MS Office, now do they? At least I know I haven't seen any "open blog format" that would let you move from Blogger to MySpace to (whatever), whereas I have seen Office file converters. Based on all of this, I'd feel a lot more comfortable committing a lot of time and effort to MS files (which you can always rescue from the HD image if the OS won't boot) than I would committing time and effort to data that's stored on a remote server that can be unplugged any time.

Re:Apples and pears

[smash]

Last I checked, you didn't pay several hundred dollars for the services offered by Myspace of Flickr. Rightly or wrongly, people perceive software as a once-off purchase. You pay for the development costs + profit, and thats it.

Once I "buy" something, I should be entitled to use it as I see fit, without being at the whim of whoever I purchased it from. The "licensing" and possible de-activation (by no longer providing activation) of software is a crock. It's akin to buying a new car from Ford, and then after 3 years being told that you're no longer allowed to put fuel in it or drive it, even though it does everything you want it to do.

Re:Apples and pears

[empaler]

More like the latest tech speak. This is Slashdot.

I am sorry if the rest of my comment gave you the impression that I would use a teenage SMS abbreviation in the middle of an otherwise coherrent sentence.

The point was that committing your files to only Flickr would be like putting your family album into storage in an Iraqi bank. They'll probably be there in ten years, but there's no way to be sure.

Re:Apples and pears

[istartedi]

I'm not saying it's a good thing. I'm just saying it's not the only threat.

Re:Microsoft.Windows.Vista.Local.Activation.Server

[nachoboy]

The part they don't mention is that the activation server only hands out activations on networks with 25+ computers. The machine may be permanently activated, but after 180 days, if you don't have 25 unique machines (and no, virtual machines can be detected and don't count), the activation server will deny your request to reactivate.

That doesn't preclude from downloading another pre-activated KMS Server, but this isn't really a permanent solution.

Re:Wishful thinking

[Knara]

At least I'm not the only one that gets "gee mister, your uid sure is low!"

That's about the time you guys usually show up out of the woodwork ;)

When are programs "technologies?"

[Johannes Rexx]

From TFA: "Volume Activation 2.0, which uses a new set of technologies to activate and validate Vista ..." More Microsoft market speak. It writes some software that does something proprietary and it's called a "set of technologies." WTF it's just programs built for one reason only - to protect a monopoly market position. Hey Ballmer! Technology != code

Re:Wishful thinking

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

You still must be class of '98...

For those pointing fingers and laughing...

[lowe0]

Would you feel the same way if MS found a loophole in the GPL that allowed them to start lifting code wholesale?

MS has a certain motivation for developing software, and they protect it through technical and legal means. The Open Source community may have several motivations for developing software, but they all use their licenses to protect that which motivates them. If you don't agree with what they do, then fine, don't use their software, but how is pirating a copy of Vista any different from helping yourself to GPL code without giving anything back? Either way, you're refusing to abide by the terms of the exchange, and basically telling the creator "I'm taking your work, and I don't care what you say about it."

Re:For those pointing fingers and laughing...

[Overly Critical Guy]

Would you feel the same way if MS found a loophole in the GPL that allowed them to start lifting code wholesale?

No, they wouldn't. They would be whining and crying about how "evil" Microsoft was and how GPL copyright protects the code from "theft." You see, copyright and ownership rights are suddenly important when it's the Linux community, but meaningless when it's a company whose software they don't like, which should normally be the end of it but is instead a religious crusade against an operating system. An operating system apparently popular enough to warrant a crack.

Doesn't matter to me either way. I can't stand Windows or Linux.

Re:For those pointing fingers and laughing...

[porl]

legal != moral

Re:For those pointing fingers and laughing...

[julesh]

Would you feel the same way if MS found a loophole in the GPL that allowed them to start lifting code wholesale?

MS has a certain motivation for developing software, and they protect it through technical and legal means.

You'll find that most people here are perfectly in favour of MS enforcing their rights via legal means (as long as they don't use strongarm tactics to do so... discovering somebody has unlicensed copies of windows because of a tip-off is one thing, requiring a contract that enables them to randomly audit a company's offices is another entirely).

We do object, on principle, to enforcement of legal rights by technological means. This is largely because the technological means are (a) inconvenient to legitimate users and (b) don't always work quite the way the should.

Windows Activation is inconvenient because it:

* Requires you to give information to MS that you might not want to give them, and which they have no legal right to.
* Requires you to effectively get permission from MS if you want to upgrade your computer's hardware multiple times (or reinstall your copy of Windows on a different machine, if your existing machine fails, etc...)
* Has made MS extend the Windows kernel so that it will not run versions of certain programs that haven't been signed by Microsoft. This means that I can no longer rip Windows apart, replace WINLOGON.EXE with a custom program that does what *I* want it to do, and not log in via an MS-approved process. Not that I've ever done that, but I kind-of liked the fact that I could if I wanted to (it's not as well documented as replacing 'init' on a Linux system, but there is information about how you would go about doing it out there -- but that's irrelevant now, only MS can do it).

If you don't agree with what they do, then fine, don't use their software, but how is pirating a copy of Vista any different from helping yourself to GPL code without giving anything back?

It isn't. But who said anything about pirating Windows? I have a legitimate copy of XP on my machine. Label stuck to the case, and all. Do I run WGA? Fuck no, I don't want to get involved with that; I don't want to get involved with something that will complain if it isn't able to validate my copy of Windows through some completely undocumented process that may or may not be correct for any given installation. Perhaps multiple people are using my activation code -- I have no way of knowing if anyone's flipped my laptop over and made a note of the number while I wasn't present. But then, despite having that activation code, I didn't use it last time I reinstalled Windows. Why? Well, the copy of Windows that was supplied with it only installs from a system restore disc that wipes all data on your hard disk. I didn't want to do that, so I installed from a regular retail edition of XP. Which I then had to hack to make activation work, because I'd already activated a machine with its key.

Another piece of software I use validates itself against an encrypted key that has a copy of my network interface's MAC associated with it. Fine, except for some reason the damned process occasionally causes the thing's driver to crash while its performing the validation. So of course I've hacked it, despite having a perfectly legal key.

It isn't only pirates who are concerned about Windows Activation, WGA and other copy-prevention mechanisms.

Re:Wishful thinking

[voidptr]

That's about the time you guys usually show up out of the woodwork ;)

The woodwork isn't the problem. It's the cement vault they put the casket inside that's a bitch to get out of.

Re:Microsoft.Windows.Vista.Local.Activation.Server

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this legal? I remember reading about not being allowed to run Vista in a virtual box and/or commenting on Vista performance, not to mention investigate the DRM mechanism...

Re:Wishful thinking

[stonedcat]

heh eh heh ehe heh you said woodwork

Re:Wishful thinking

[Zack]

No... no you're not.

At least M$ has made progress on the spam front...

[xactuary]

... for it was fortold two years ago:

Spam will be a thing of the past in two years' time, Microsoft boss Bill Gates has promised.

Status and money...

[Marnhinn]

There is probably a fairly big financial incentive also.

Commerical piracy of Vista will be at least as big as piracy of XP - and the sellers / producers of the pirated software will need this sort of stuff.

Re:Status and money...

[bitkari]

Since when have the 'professional' pirates ever been the first to crack anything?

The black-market types will just wait a few days for the enthusiasts to crack the software then just make money off the back of the cracker's work, as they do with the software itself.

vista - a time bomb

[NTesla]

what you probably don't know is that Microsoft has a reserved set of hostnames/ips in the kernel that do no go through normal name-resolution process. so even if you modify your hosts files, spoof dns servers and key servers, at some point it will try to contact them directly without going through "documented" name resolution process.
While their intentions may sound reasonable - bypass spyware and viruses that may have hijacked the OS to allow clean-up and windows updates sw through, it may also allow them to disable your system or collect enough information on you to prosecute.
Stick with XP or better yet, switch to linux.

Re:vista - a time bomb

[porl]

so if i have an external firewall that does host/ip/mac etc spoofing on outgoing packets vista automagically detects that 'the internet is routing wrong' and bypasses this? wow, maybe microsoft programmers *do* deserve credit... i agree with your post's intentions though (esp the last line)

Re:vista - a time bomb

[Mistah Blue]

I switched to MacOS X almost 2 yrs ago at home. I just got my wife a MacBook for Christmas. I don't need not steenking Vista!

The MelindaGates hack

[Robber Baron]

The MelindaGates hack Why is it called that...does it run on Microsoft Bob or something?

I got Bob to run on XP...don't ask me why I bothered to try it.

Re:Wishful thinking

[Lord Kano]

Fuck all of you guys.

And the sub-14-bit UIDs you rode in on.

LK

Re:Microsoft.Windows.Vista.Local.Activation.Server

[Anonymous Coward]

its VMWare, just take snapshots and rollback?

Re:vista - a time bomb - How MS DRM Works

[Anonymous Coward]

The key server is only half the issue...

During every 'Windows Update' (or perhaps quietly in the back ground) Vista will download a list of revoked key servers. As MS gets copies of the VM'd key servers, identifies them, their sigs go into the revocation list.

Your... erm, son of hacked key-server Vista copy downloads the revocation list, finds it's a bastard and promptly switches itself off.

Now... if you can hack the revocation part of Vista itself, you'll have the other 50% of a full Vista hack.

Re:vista - a time bomb - How MS DRM Works

[Travoltus]

Or they will run out of keys to revoke.

An enterprising hacker might
a) seek out and duplicate the keys of other customers' installations
and/or
b) put in zillions of keys to be invalidated all at once, until all possible combos have been covered.

a) is nearly infinitely easier and more immediately devastating. Lots of high profile customers become enraged.

b) will make Vista completely unusable.

Access to historical data

[Anonymous Coward]

Many countries, including Norway, has data retention law that makes it mandatory to preserve certain types of information for future archeologists. I wonder how an archeologist 20 years from now can access data on a system that required activation on a server at a company that no longer support the version.

Its' called shadenfreud

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, when a bully gets their arse kicked and people have a good laugh it isn't because they'd like an arse kicking themselves.

Capish?

Re:Its' called shadenfreud

[lowe0]

Yes, but schadenfreude is a BAD thing.

Re:Microsoft.Windows.Vista.Local.Activation.Server

[cralewyth]

Check the versions.

This is talking about business and enterprise versions... virtual box restrictions were only for home versions, weren't they?

Re:vista - a time bomb - How MS DRM Works

[julesh]

Now... if you can hack the revocation part of Vista itself, you'll have the other 50% of a full Vista hack.

Not quite -- you still need to find a way of disabling WGA without preventing updates from working.

Re:TAG THIS ARTICLE TROLL!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Moderators, a little more attention please. He requested to tag the *article* Troll, not the *comment*

Re:Wishful thinking

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, so I'm down to 44 now ...unless you're spoofing it ;P

Re:Wishful thinking

[Knara]

The funny thing is that I forgot my UID for a few years after I apparently created it, and really paid no attention to UID numbers until someone said, "Wow! Your UID is so low!" one day about a year ago.

Re:Wishful thinking

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Yeah. It's not exactly something in the forefront of my mind, as I type out my wisecracks!

Wikipedia on EULA enforceability

[PolR]

I suggest you check Wikipedia on the topic of EULA enforceability. They say the 6th and 7th circuits believed the "licensed not sold" theory while most other circuits do not. Whether the stated has passed UCITA also matters. There are a couple of other complications as well.

I am not sure how accurate the article is, but FWIW there it is.

Re:Wikipedia on EULA enforceability

[julesh]

See my other post. 8th circuit has also held that software may be licensed like this.

not well

[everphilski]

if you consider crashing 1-2 times a night (and most likely, dying in the process) acceptable, then yea. I don't.

Re:not well

[morcego]

How is that any different than playing on Windows ? The last I've tried, it would also crash 1-2 times a night.

Actually, I have had more crashed while playing on Windows than on cedega, thou not Everquest in particular.

Quake

[aliquis]

And I thought ezquake was the only game you would ever need? It's available for Windows, OS X and Linux.

Runnin games started winders..linux can too!

[Anonymous Coward]

Running games is how winders got its start. Linux can do it too! All it has to do is crack the monopoly that windows goons have blackmailed onto the games industry. The industry has consolidated in recent years. When winders got its start, game publishers did not care what system ran its games, just so they ran for their customers. There were many players. Then the players started swallowing each other in predatory 'free trade'. Windows' goons took advantage of this and made 'arrangements' with game publishers to secretly manipulate the market. Make game/operating compatibility information secret from non windows operating system manufactureres/packagers. Make it 'illegal' to see the code so that legitamate compatibility code could not be developed and legally sold under a variety of crooked 'antipiracy' laws, etc. With a reduction in the number of players, it became much easier to secure the illegal restraint of trade at a higher and more secret and more efficient level. Just try to get a 'EA' game to run in linux. If you did, you would be put in jail if you published it. No, winders will have to be dealt with on a government level now. Nations allied against the US will have to make it a law and punish winders wankers within their borders. Then those nations could put the fixes on their own government servers and protect those servers with military force. If Ugo Chavez is listening...do this South America wide and the Bolivarian Revolution is at hand as millions of gamers all across latin america sing 'A La Colores'.

DRM hardware can be viewed as a security module

[msobkow]

I was speaking of the DRM being used as a security module to prevent injection of malicious code into the VM manager, kernel, device drivers, or core system libraries and services. i.e. A hardware-enhanced variant on the kind of checksum validation that AppArmour and older implementations do. Good admins have doing that kind of checksumming in secure environments for decades, but using homebrewed scripts and implementations.

Vista had the opportunity to demonstrate a hardware-enhanced variant on that approach, and blew it.

Re:Wishful thinking

[l0cust]

.... I don't like this UID comparing business but 44 goddammit! Hmm, on the brighter side, we finally get a post from one of the Old Ones we keep hearing so much about in all those damn RPGs ! Please don't destroy the world till next year. I am saving for a new graphics card !

Re:Microsoft.Windows.Vista.Local.Activation.Server

[Anonymous Coward]

The .vmx file needs to be edited so as to include commands to start the virtual machine with the RTC set to a particular time (or within an appropriate range). That way every time you start the server, it still thinks there are 41 clients connected.