Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

One In Five Windows Installs Is Non-Genuine

Posted by kdawson on from the false-positives dept.

snib writes "Microsoft disclosed Monday that, according to reports collected by the notorious Windows Genuine Advantage tool on millions of users' PCs, 22% of all Windows installs do not pass its validation tests and have therefore been deemed non-genuine. Quoting: 'Since WGA launched in July 2005, over 512 million users have attempted to validate their copy of Windows, Microsoft said. Of those, the non-genuine rate was 22.3 percent... [T]he Business Software Alliance... reports that 35 percent of the world's software is pirated (22 percent in North America)...'"

17 of 481 comments (clear)

  1. WGA by brain1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or does WGA fail 22% of the time? Hmmm?

    1. Re:WGA by Bri3D · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The article also doesn't realize that the majority of serious (aka real) pirated Windows installations use MuBlinder or another memory-patching or DLL replacement application to bypass WGA.
      I think that nearly 100% of the failures reported were false positives, and that the number is probably highly inflated by legit users frantically trying to get their critical security updates after WGA has randomly failed them.
      The real pirates are dodging WGA and aren't trackable with these stats.

  2. Bad numbers by Anon-Admin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I can count 5 that fail it's validation and every one of them is a legal copy on a legal system.

    I would look at there program first, then accuse everyone of steeling second.

    It really does not surprise me that there are a lot of pirated copies out there.

  3. A thought.... by Chairboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One in five... of people who actually attempted to run the WGA. I'd imagine there's a sizable group of people who already know they won't pass it, so they never even try.

    I anticipate that some folks will say 'lolz if WGA doesn't false positive!!11!!eleventy!' (translated: Assuming that WGA doesn't falsely label a machine as pirated). The number of these seems to be reeeeeally low, I'm guessing it's not a big part of the final numbers.

  4. Most likely an undercount by Dobeln · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actual piracy numbers are likely to be even larger.

    Why? Two main reasons.

    One: Pirates are probably far less likely to attempt to run a WGA certification compared to a legitimate licence holder. For obvious reasons.

    Two: "Borrowed" corporate editions, etc. will validate despite being, well, "borrowed".

  5. Probably much higher than that by RyoShin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I bet that 22% is probably very wrong.

    They say that that's 22% of those who attempted to be authenticated- anyone who knows they are using a pirated copy sure as hell isn't going to try to authenticate it. Those who failed either didn't know they had a pirated copy (installed by teenage son or shady computer store) or are really dumb pirates.

    Or the third option, that WGA fails a fifth of the time. I can think of at least one instance where I have tried to authenticate a legitamite copy (which I had just unpacked from HP, and was doing updates on) and WGA said it didn't pass.

  6. My policy is... by gillbates · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Those who insist on using proprietary operating systems get to pay for them. Yes, even when that means they pay with their time.

    If your copy of Windows won't validate, that's between you and Microsoft, my friend:

    • If you were using OSS, you wouldn't have this problem in the first place, and,
    • As much as I pity you, I can't help you. No, I'm not going to Google for an MS Keygen for you.
    • No, you can't "borrow" a Windows key from me. I don't have one.
    • No, I *really* can't help you. If your OS doesn't validate, there's nothing I can do. It's not just a matter of won't, but I can't.
    • If you think commercial software is so great, follow the commercial model of paying someone for support.

    Oh, and there's a Linux installfest this Thursday. If things between you and Bill don't work out, why don't you stop by and install a real 64 bit OS on your machine?

    But I do hate it for the gamers, man. What are they going to do?

    --
    The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
    1. Re:My policy is... by toadlife · · Score: 5, Insightful


      Those who insist on using open source operating systems get to pay for them. Yes, that means they pay with their time.

      If your copy of Ubuntu won't play DVDs, that's between you and Google, my friend:

              * If you were using Windows Vista, you wouldn't have this problem in the first place, and,
              * As much as I pity you, I can't help you. No, I'm not going to Google for 'Ogle crashing' for you.
              * No, you can't "borrow" a Windows key from me. Go and buy your own.
              * No, I *really* can't help you. If your OS doesn't work, there's nothing I can do. It's not just a matter of won't, but I can't.
              * If you think open source software is so great, follow the open source model of RTFM and Googling.

      Oh, and there's a Windows UG meeting this Thursday. If things between you and Tux don't work out, why don't you stop by and install an OS with ISV and OEM support on your machine?

      But I do hate it for the gamers, man. What are they going to do?

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
  7. Re:Well... by tverbeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wouldn't be surprised if every user whose "validation" fails tries at least a couple more times after that, inflating the failure rate.

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  8. Sucks to be in the 80% by dfay · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wonder if they plan to apologize to the 80% of their customers who got this system foisted on them without recourse (you have to enable WGA to get security fixes).

    Not to mention, the 20% must be either really stupid (I wonder if my Haxxored Windows copy will validate? Gee, let's try!) or, more likely, have misconfigured Windows systems or bugs in WGA that report them as invalid when they probably own a legitimate license.

    Great marketing strategy though: punish your legit user-base as the pirates work around your system. Can't wait to see how Vista improves things. I'm excited to see what "advantage" I'm "genuinely" going to get.

    Disclosure: I only allow WGA on my work machine, where I have little choice and didn't pay the license fee personally.

  9. Yes, but by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 3, Insightful

    1. How many installs are erroneously flagged as genuine?

    2. How many installs are erroneously flagged as not genuine?

    3. How many installs are not seen by WGA?

    4. How many of those are genuine/not genuine?

    --
    Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
  10. Re:A la Bash.org by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 4, Insightful
    False positives? Lots. I changed my mobo, video card, dvd twice in the course of repairing and upgrading the same beige box (hey, I like that case!) and ran out of "genuine advantage" brownie points somewhere. I really, really did not appreciate having to replace XP.

    Yes, I should know better. Wish SoE would provide a decent Vanguard SOH port to Linux...

    --
    Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
  11. Re:Well... by QRDeNameland · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Yeah, but those same geeky pirates probably know enough to sidestep validation.

    Excellent point. That was the first thing I thought of...of all the people who pirate Windows, how many ever subject themselves to WGA? I suspect it is a relative small fraction of them. And then there is the reciprocal question, of the 22% that report as non-genuine, how many are really valid installs that raise a false positive? If it's even 10%, that puts the false positive rate at around 2%, which would be unacceptably high in my opinion.

    --
    Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
  12. Re:Well... by catwh0re · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I think it's important that Microsoft doesn't correlate WGA failures with actual pirate installations. Firstly for the reason you've listed above, but also because we all know that WGA doesn't even work very well. I for one know of many systems that have passed WGA despite having an illegitimate serial number. I also know of a few where they haven't passed, despite being bonafide installations from dell. I believe MS hasn't well-tracked the serials which are being pirated out there 'in the wild' and WGA is their future on clamping down on serial number duplicity.

    I also believe Microsoft should 'suck it up' because if they have an 80% non-piracy rate for a monopolised operating system that is still very good returns, and the "20%" of pirated software merely helps to maintain that monopoly.

    I'm certain Microsoft would prefer to keep those 20% on windows rather than have them on linux for example.

  13. Re:Really? by mollymoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I never bothered with XP at all, precisely because of this product activation crap. But I too did the right thing, and legally bought a Mac. Curiously, I then started paying for all my (commercial) software - perhaps because I am older and richer than I was, but I think not having an adversarial relationship with my computer and not feeling like I was being fucked over by an abusive monopolist helped too.

    --
    Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
  14. Offtopic but a reply to your post... by adisakp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I clicked on the link in your sig and I have some constructive criticism to offer your company.

    > Photoshop has 20+ layer modes. We offer 70+ at 10% the cost. [blackbeltsystems.com]

    Wow is that web-page UGLY. You'd think that a company offering image manipulation software would know enough about imaging to not have such an ugly webpage. Especially annoying shit like

    * blue text on two slightly different blue backgrounds for the navigation links
    * metalled embossed hard to read fonts as headers
    * "link-heavy" text with more links than text (put it into a list of feature links)
    * multi-column text that goes off-page requiring "back-scrolling" to read
    * juvenile snipes at vague competitors rather than professional and objective feature comparisons
    * overuse of exclamation points! Especially in testimonials! No Really!
    * prominent google ads for a site trying to sell commercial software

    For punishment, I suggest you make your web-page designer navigate this site for an hour or two: http://corson.tv/main/buttugly.htm

    1. Re:Offtopic but a reply to your post... by jackbird · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I do understand the product (full-time 3D artist/compositor/TD), and I agree with the GP.

      I even considered taking your product for a spin, but if you can't be arsed to hire a web designer to sell image manipulation software, I can't be arsed to take you seriously.

      I hereby deduct one point from your diatribe's validity score for presuming that programmers are artists. Then hire an artist. If OSS applications can get volunteers to make great icons, and sometimes even a useable UI, your commercial software company has no excuse. In addition to the webpage, those Windows 3.1-esque giant icon buttons in the UI have got to go. Oh, and the shitty fractal terrain example images, too (it's 2007, and terragen 2 is coming. Hell, Terragen 1 from years ago looks loads better, and it's free/cheap.) You claim big clients, show big results.

      I deduct another point for not addressing product issues. Production artists have to ramp up on lots of applications quickly. Showing off a cluttered mess of a UI on an unreadable webpage with horrible dayglo fractal sample images in the screenshots does not give me confidence in the production-worthiness or ease of use of your tool. If you want to reach people, consider explaining why your morpher is a better option than Combustion, Fusion, Shake, or even an ancient copy of Elastic Reality from the top shelf in the closet, for example. Another example is that when examining your 70+ layer modes, fully half of the first ten should really be composed of multiple operators, both to increase flexibility and to reduce clutter (why should I have to memorize, and pick from, a list of 70, if half of them are "inverted foo"? Why layers instead of nodes, for that matter, if you're touting a powerful procedural compositor with a robust scripting language?)
      Perhaps the most glaring red flag is the lack of a user-to-user forum. That suggests either that nobody is using the software, or that you don't want people talking to each other about it.

      I deduct another point for characterizing your criticism as "constructive" when it was simply an opportunity to bluster about web pages. I just suggested some positive steps you can take. So did the GP, for that matter. Harsh criticism is a day-to-day reality of the industry you're serving, and people who take it personally wdon't tend to last long. Don't get mad, you're getting valuable feedback from your target market.

      Finally, I deduct another point for being offtopic. Since I'm replying to your reply, it's on-topic now.

      HAND.

      Make a case that your software will make artists lives easier and more productive, with great sample images and clear feature examples, and you just might have a hit.