WGA Under Vista SP1 Is Kinder and Nags More

DaMan writes in with a ZDNet blog entry on Windows Genuine Advantage under Vista SP1. It seems that the draconian features present in Vista RTM have been replaced by nag screens and annoyances such as repeatedly changing the desktop background to black. But WGA no longer turns off Aero and ReadyBoost or logs you out after an hour."

Comments

nag screens and annoyances

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds to me like they just made WGA consistent with the rest of the OS.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[Ilgaz]

Sounds to me like they just made WGA consistent with the rest of the OS. Isn't spyware (forget that lawyer made up term) something:

1) Installs itself with false promises , e.g. "We will make your internet and system faster with better features!"
2) Steals private data which you would normally NEVER provide if you had a chance to think twice.
3) Tortures your user experience and break your system if you ever attempt to get rid of it?

So, by definition, WGA enabled Windows is spyware and I don't blame MS for it. There is a company who makes easier, faster, better products and they got significant market share at least on portables now. It is not like "Install Linux and ./configure" anymore. Also user friendly distros like Ubuntu exists.

If considerable amount of MS customers got rid of it or simply rejected using Windows only because of WGA, you would see WGA fade away in weeks, no less.

I was using Windows back in 2002-2003 era and I can't see a reason why WGA or Customer Experience service isn't considered plain spyware.

Of course if you act like a lemming, you will be treated like a lemming. After OS X, Intel Switch which made Mac very credible thanks to popularithy, distros like Ubuntu... Why do we blame MS anymore? It is end user/customer to blame. Let them sit with their WGA bugging OS who treats them as a thief.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[Anonymous Coward]

What I find most amusing about WGA is the "This copy is not genuine"-concept. No one but Microsoft has the source code to Windows so if you're running Windows then it most certainly is Genuine because no feature-complete Windows clones exist (and if they did then I seriously doubt they would implement WGA, and ReactOS in it's current state wouldn't fool anybody). Technically speaking, the message should read "This copy of Windows hasn't made Microsoft any profits" or "the distribution media for this copy of Windows isn't genuine" but I guess Microsoft figured it wouldn't sound as good. Windows - even if cracked - is still Windows, after all.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[cliffski]

I don't mind if windows verifies itself with Microsoft. Does that make me a sheep? It's an expensive product and they want to ensure people aren't pirating it. My copy is legit, so why should I resent that? I'm not sure what 'personal information' they will be getting from me, my hard drive serial number maybe? hardly my bank account details.
Microsoft are no more 'treating their customers like thieves' than a store that has security tags on the clothes and a scanner by each exit. Amazingly, only the shoplifters get bent out of shape about those.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[dotancohen]

Of course if you act like a lemming, you will be treated like a lemming. After OS X, Intel Switch which made Mac very credible thanks to popularithy, distros like Ubuntu... Why do we blame MS anymore? It is end user/customer to blame. Let them sit with their WGA bugging OS who treats them as a thief. Actually, a large percentage of Microsoft's userbase _are_ thiefs, according to a rather broad definition. That's why they go to the lengths that they go. MS Windows is the number one pirated software, closely followed by Adode Acrobat and MS Office. Paintshop is a distant fourth.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[RicardoGCE]

Microsoft are no more 'treating their customers like thieves' than a store that has security tags on the clothes and a scanner by each exit. Amazingly, only the shoplifters get bent out of shape about those.
Once I leave the store, I don't have to check in with the store owner when I want to use the product I already paid for.
I'm against software piracy. But I'm also against intrusive control mechanisms that will annoy legitimate users.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[EvilIdler]

I don't mind if Windows calls home ONCE, as I install it, to verify.

But WGA is, to use your security tag analogy, as if they leave the tag on after
you buy the clothes, and regularly sweep your home to ensure you did not lend
out any of your clothes to other people.

But verifying that you have the genuine article on each installation is
perfectly agreeable.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[Hal_Porter]

Most people running pirate copies of Windows don't know they are from what I can tell. They buy a machine with preinstalled Windows and the sticker is a fake and so is the recovery disk if they got one. So it's not genuine in the sense a forged dollar bill is not genuine.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[erick99]

It definitely does not make you a sheep. I think it makes you reasonable. There is a balance between security and not annoying your customer to the point that he or she will no longer buy from you. I think Microsoft is trying to find that balance. I don't think they have found it yet but I do think they are trying.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[Compholio]

Microsoft are no more 'treating their customers like thieves' than a store that has security tags on the clothes and a scanner by each exit. Amazingly, only the shoplifters get bent out of shape about those.

Not true, I've never shoplifted anything in my entire life and I hate those damn things. They:

• Frequently forget to take the tags off or they don't properly demagnetize the tag and set off the alarm.
• Go off when a lot of people are exiting and therefore make everyone near the thing stop for a search.
• Set off on cell phones, iPods, and other electronics.

I would say that they probably piss off more customers than they save the store from shoplifting, I definitely prefer to go to stores that don't have them.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[mlts]

WGA should at least give the option to back up its state of that its activated to a certain machine, similar to how one in XP can back up the wpa.bak and wpa.dbl files. Then, in case the machine has to be reinstalled again, Windows can prompt for a copy of these files, and not have to ask for a CD key on future installs.

I come from a UNIX background where the OS is a critical part of not just the computer, but likely the company where its installed, and downtime on a upper end AIX or Solaris production machine or cluster is money lost every second. The OS should have -zero- licensing because its such a critical part of the infrastructure. Applications, licensing is understandable, but the OS itself should just install immediately. This is similar to Tolis BRU's philosophy of allowing access to backed up data regardless of if a license key is entered.

Another possibility, but this is a can of worms, is using a TPM chip to store a certificate. Once the machine is activated to use a certain edition and OS, a certificate is stored in the TPM, similar to how Apple stores a certificate for MacOS. Then, on subsequent installs, the OS just checks to see if its licensed via the TPM for that feature set, and goes on its merry way, never requiring activation again.

Microsoft at least has done a step in the right direction in this case, so I applaud this.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft are no more 'treating their customers like thieves' than a store that has security tags on the clothes and a scanner by each exit. Amazingly, only the shoplifters get bent out of shape about those.

Actually, people who make it home to find that one of the tags was accidentally left on the clothes they purchased and can't be removed without the use of special tools or ruining the clothing get fairly bent out of shape. So lets ask ourselves... does WGA more closely represent a security device that gets removed right after purchase, or one that remains on after purchase, preventing reasonable use of said purchase?

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[fohat]

Whenever I buy something at a store and walk through the door setting off the alarm, I just keep going. I know I bought what's in my bag, and if they want to run after me let them. They should hire smarter checkout clerks. At the drugstore down the street, they used to have a voice that would come on in addition to a loud beeping that would say, "Pardon us. We failed to deactivate the inventory control system from your purchase. Someone will be there to assist you momentarily." (repeatedly). After a few years they got rid of that voice because the thing would constantly go off due to the items that had security tags hidden where the clerk couldn't see them.

That said, I stopped using Windows at home 2 years ago because I refuse to knowingly use any product where the company producing it treats their customers like criminals.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[SeeManRun]

No matter what you think, Ubuntu is not as user friendly as any version of Windows. If you had never used a computer before, then yes maybe you could learn the Ubuntu/Linux way of doing things, and it would make sense. But most people come from Windows/Mac, and making the switch to Linux is kinda brutal on anyone but the technical savvy. Microsoft doesn't make their products for niche markets, they make them for the masses, and the masses shouldn't have to know how a computer works, what a kernel is, or what their PATH points to.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[Anonymous Coward]

And believe me, I wouldn't mind WGA at all if they removed it with a magnetic gizmo while I was checking out. I'd settle for being able to resell my clothing at a garage sale without violating the EBULA (B is for Boxers) causing the alarms at the store automatically going nuts which then tell the boxers to cut off circulation to my customers... uh... nevermind.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[noidentity]

Microsoft are no more 'treating their customers like thieves' than a store that has security tags on the clothes and a scanner by each exit. Amazingly, only the shoplifters get bent out of shape about those.

OK, I bought Vista (hypothetical, of course) and take it home. Why is the metaphorical security tag still attached and beeping at me whenever I change my computer's hardware, among other things? Your analogy is plain flawed. Try again.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[bigdavesmith]

Microsoft are no more 'treating their customers like thieves' than a store that has security tags on the clothes and a scanner by each exit. Amazingly, only the shoplifters get bent out of shape about those.

Once I purchase the shirt and leave the store, their security measures do not affect my shirt wearing experience, nor the performance of my shirt.
For Joe user, I think Vista and all its quirks are fine. For those of us who have higher demands, technical or otherwise, these 'quirks' are significant issues. To each his/her own.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[dmsuperman]

Bad analogy. It's more like, passing through the security tag detector gates on the way out. Or, a more unrealistic one (but even closer to the original example), your shirt automatically calling the store and asking if the security tag was _actually_ removed or if the shirt was just tricked into thinking so. The only input it requires is asking if it can do so, and a warning that failure will result in the shirt automatically turning itself inside out once in a while. Microsoft isn't saying "you have to come to a microsoft support center and tell us you have windows", it's a fairly painless and automatic procedure.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[RicardoGCE]

The only input it requires is asking if it can do so, and a warning that failure will result in the shirt automatically turning itself inside out once in a while. Microsoft isn't saying "you have to come to a microsoft support center and tell us you have windows", it's a fairly painless and automatic procedure.
And if for some reason I'm unable to comply with the request, the performance of my legitimately acquired product will be affected, even though I AM a legit costumer. That's unacceptable.

And leaving logistical issues aside, there is no reason for a seller to keep tabs on me once his goods have been exchanged for my money. I refuse to be hassled or inconvenienced by someone who'll have no trouble using the money they got from me.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[nachoboy]

WGA should at least give the option to back up its state of that its activated to a certain machine, similar to how one in XP can back up the wpa.bak and wpa.dbl files. Then, in case the machine has to be reinstalled again, Windows can prompt for a copy of these files, and not have to ask for a CD key on future installs.

Just use phone activation. The installation ID calculated by Windows is the same even across formats, which means the phone confirmation ID is reusable. Just activate by phone once and you are free to reuse the confirmation ID every time you reinstall after that, no further verification by Microsoft required. Note that this applies only to Vista and is different from XP, where the installation ID included a random salt and was unique to each installation.

Another possibility, but this is a can of worms, is using a TPM chip to store a certificate. Once the machine is activated to use a certain edition and OS, a certificate is stored in the TPM, similar to how Apple stores a certificate for MacOS. Then, on subsequent installs, the OS just checks to see if its licensed via the TPM for that feature set, and goes on its merry way, never requiring activation again.

This is basically how it works today for preinstalled copies of Windows from large OEM's (Dell, HP, etc.). The computer manufacturer puts a specific string in the BIOS which is verified by Windows. If an OEM copy of Windows is used, activation is bypassed and no need for communication with Microsoft is ever required. It's only available from large OEM's because Microsoft must trust the OEM to correctly account for each computer sold and pay the appropriate license fee. This technology is referred to as SLP, or System Locked Preinstallation, and dates back to Windows XP.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[RWarrior(fobw)]

My complaint isn't activation. My complaint is that I can't take my retail box copy of any MS product and uninstall it and put it on a new/different computer.

Each MS product comes with a limited number of activations, and that activation ties the copy to a particular computer. It isn't possible, without calling and begging Microsoft for permission, to:

a) Deactivate a piece of software;
b) Register that deactivation with MS's activation servers;
c) Uninstall the software;
d) Install the software on another machine;
e) Activate the software on that other machine.

I'm not even talking about OEM versions, which are tied to hardware by their license. No, this is fully-independent retail products you'd buy at .

If I buy a new computer, I not only have to buy the box and the hardware-tied OS, I also have to buy Office again.

I can move my retail copy of Adobe Creative Suite from computer to computer using a deactivation feature -- and I don't even have to uninstall the software, which saves me time later if I want to move my license back. Why can't I do it with my retail copy of Office?

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[Anonymous Coward]

> Actually, a large percentage of Microsoft's
> userbase _are_ thiefs....
> MS Windows is the number one pirated software....

Nonsense. That might have been true at some point in the past, but it's well nigh impossible to buy a computer for which Microsoft hasn't been paid for a Windows license, whether the user even uses it or not. Moreover, since the advent of product activation with Windows XP and Office 2002, piracy of Windows is beyond the skill of the vast majority of Windows users.

There will always be some small percentage of users who manage to "steal" software, but for Microsoft this hasn't been a serious problem since the mid 90s.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[mlts]

I agree with you about the genuine concept.

The concept of a copy being genuine applies to the physical media (as opposed to counterfeit CDs). This I understand, and don't mind Microsoft using a load of physical anti-counterfeiting features, from the holograms to the uniquely designed boxes. Making fake physical media and trying to pass it off as copies from Microsoft (as opposed to IP violations) should be a crime with stiff penalties, because this act is obviously theft, where the software vendor has lost money on a bogus copy [1].

For the Windows Genuine Advantage text, if MS does have to have this system in place (which can be argued, I personally detest it, as it only hurts legit, paying users for the most part), I wish MS would just say it like it should be -- "This copy is not properly licensed", as opposed to trying to use a word that is tenuous at best for software. Assuming the software has not been modified, a copy from some really scummy location, and a copy burned to a DVD from the developer's build server are exactly the same. The concept of "genuine" when it comes to ones and zeroes is irrelevant, provided the software has not been tampered with.

[1]: I'm trying to keep separate the two issues of IP violations (copying commercial software), from physical theft (making fake packaging). There are plenty of arguments (pro/con) about IP violations, but I am sure few people would disagree that making counterfeit media and CDs is truly stealing (where the software maker has lost the revenue from a sale, and the counterfeiter has gained money).

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[JLennox]

You personally have had trouble with a legally purchased copy of Windows Vista and WGA? Or are you just parroting the vocal minority because that's the slashdot way?

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[Denyer]

Nobody wants to feel that an expensive piece of software they paid for (probably a tool they rely on for business) could stop working if someone remotely flicks a switch.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[dmsuperman]

So you're alright with paying more for your shirt because you refuse to be hassled, so the person stealing it also won't be hassled? That's how the system works now, and I personally think that if WGA can keep the already high price of windows down then there's nothing wrong with it. Why wouldn't you be able to comply with the request? Is your mouse and keyboard broken? How hard is it to hit "Validate"?

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[cliffski]

learn some manners.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[RicardoGCE]

You personally have had trouble with a legally purchased copy of Windows Vista and WGA? Or are you just parroting the vocal minority because that's the slashdot way?
I called the system "unacceptable". That means I don't use Windows, because I don't like the strings attached, regardless of how "transparent" people want to claim it is.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[dotancohen]

Who buys computers? I build my computers, I buy the components.

And in my country, most computers bought in a computer store were assembled right there in that store. There are very few Dell, HP, and other systems here. That is very common in the world outside those manufacturer's home country. These systems do not 'come' with Windows anymore than a Mustang 'comes' with a V8. You pay extra for it. Or you don't.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[RicardoGCE]

Windows 98 had no such "protection" and was cheaper than XP and Vista.

Why wouldn't you be able to comply with the request?

My connection could be down.

And once again, it doesn't matter how "easy" it may be. A legitimate user shouldn't have to do it if they don't want to, and the performance of their system shouldn't be compromised as a result.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[calebt3]

My connection could be down. If you have one. Granted, a lack of internet is a rarity these days, but I only got internet 2-3 years ago

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to agree, that I'm not really against crime deterrents, but there have been plenty of instances where these crime deterrents were a real nuisance when I have a legitimate copy of a program.

For example, back when I still had dialup, Half Life 2 came out (I know get with the times heh..). I had been anticipating this software for some time and purchased it near release date. After which, I proceeded to spend 4 days installing the game...
Due to valves attempt at anti piracy by requiring internet access and encrypting the game files so that the game had to be decrypted by means of a secure registered account through steam, which, while being a great tool, is a horribly put together piece of software that tends to bog down decent (not top of the line) computers to the point where computers using a winmodem (which I was btw) would constantly loose their internet connect, thus making it nearly impossible for me to install, letalone play, the game I had just spent 50$ on to purchase and had played up as one of the greatest next games to just about everyone I knew. my opinion of the game went from sky high, to sewer trash in a matter of hours, and I hadn't even played the game yet.

I Understand that companies need to protect their intellectual rights, as a game programmer I believe in the need to protect those rights.
but ruining the user experience is not the way to do it, because in the end the only thing you accomplish is, slowing down hackers/crackers/pirates from getting your software, but NEVER stopping them.

there is a cracked or hacked version of every program that requires any kind of key, or unlocking mechanism, even software that uses hardware locks (software that requires you to plug a device into your usb or serial port on your computer) have hacks available for them.
So what is the point of all this wasted time?

so we deter a minor amount of piracy, and prevent less computer literate users from pirating software...
fact of the matter is the people who know how to hack these pieces of software, or know how to get the stuff to allow them to use pirated copies, often times are willing to spend the money on a quality product.

so whats the solution?
make quality products that people feel justified in spending the ridiculously overpriced cost for it. //End Rant

-anonymous coward formerly known as Twiner

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[dmsuperman]

Windows 98 was also released 10 years ago, when such piracy was not nearly as big a problem as it is today. Times changes, so must security. WGA is Microsoft securing their product. How do you suggest it figure out who stole it and who didn't without bothering you but still preventing pirates from getting their product for free?

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[Gordonjcp]

Granted, a lack of internet is a rarity these days

In my last job, I worked in areas with no Internet connection at all, most of the time. The last thing you want is to have Windows playing silly buggers because it's decided that the multi-million pound radio link you've just plugged into the management port of is some new device, and then demanded to re-register itself, when you're standing in horizontal sleet on the top of a mountain.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[RicardoGCE]

Windows 98 was also released 10 years ago, when such piracy was not nearly as big a problem as it is today. Times changes, so must security. WGA is Microsoft securing their product. How do you suggest it figure out who stole it and who didn't without bothering you but still preventing pirates from getting their product for free? I don't care how they do it, as long as they leave me alone. I'm not the thief. I should never be inconvenienced by them.

"Times change" is not an excuse for piss-poor solutions.

Piracy exists, and it's here to stay. You know it's so when a legitimate user of Windows XP has to put up with online activation and WGA, but a pirate can get a cracked copy that will never trouble him with such issues. It will be the same for Vista, no matter how many tweaks each successive SP offers.

Now, the trick is fighting piracy without hassling the people who keep your sorry ass in business. Microsoft is failing at that. How to do it? I don't know. But I do know that "keep your legit users under periodic surveillance" shouldn't be on the list.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[MaxwellStreet]

"I'm not the thief. I should never be inconvenienced by them. "

or analgously . ..

"I'm not the terrorist. I should never be inconvenienced by them. "

Fact is, we're inconvenienced all the time by the exceptions rather than the rule.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[The Analog Kid]

WGA is Microsoft securing their product. How do you suggest it figure out who stole it and who didn't without bothering you but still preventing pirates from getting their product for free?

Because you know pirates can't crack the software to circumvent WGA or anything like that. WGA only annoys the legit-user, pirates just shut it off.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[angst_ridden_hipster]

Hey, I paid for Vista too. Twice, so far, WGA has gone fubar on me. I don't know why -- I didn't change hardware or anything. Th first time, while talking to tech support in Bangalore, I went through one of the most frustrating experiences ever with a computer company where the woman was insisting there were options on my screen that didn't exist. I'd read the list of options, and she'd say "No, sir, use the other option" (this dance repeated four times before she transfered me to a department that was not answering their phone). I was unable to get the system working until the next day, when that department re-opened, and someone could give me what he called a "onetime reauthorization code."

The second time, a few weeks later, the problem returned. Tech support walked me through it again. I used the "MGADiag" program that told me I was using a genuine copy, meanwhile WGA popups were calling me a thief and shutting me down. Again, it took hours on the phone to resolve.

So far, it's been OK since that second episode. But I'm out about four hours of phone time, and one evening of no Windows computer. As I said to the tech support people - if I had just been dishonest and gotten a cracked version, I wouldn't have had those problems. Why they were insistent on punishing their legit customers, I don't know.

My Mac OS and Linux machines may have their annoyances too, but they have never called me "thief!"

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[dotancohen]

I personally know of two incidents of legal Windows XP (not Vista) installations failing WGA tests. Google it, it seems to be not unusual. Now, I freely admit that I'm a Linux slut, but I can objectively say that WGA will flag a legal system as counterfeit. And this was not after some hardware change. One is a neighbor, who still has her original disk, and hasn't pulled the computer out from under the desk in maybe four years. The other is family.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[Tony Hoyle]

Every now and then a store will forget to remove a tag. The alarm goes off, nobody cares.

I then go in and out of various stores.. in about half the alarm goes off both in and out. nobody cares.

The tagging system just seems to be unenforced these days.. like car alarms - people are so used to hearing them they blank them out.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[Anne Thwacks]

I would only be slighly annoyed if it wasnt for the fact that WGA appears to have 100% failure rate.

All my legit machines at work bought from PC World Business dept rate as fake, while the dodgy copies I bought from a guy with a stall in a sidestreet near the computer fair for £5 appear to be genuine.

I laugh at MS 'piracy' statistics. Made up ones would be more reliable.

Maybe MS is demonstating the value of its patent on the "Logical-Not operator".

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[AngelWind]

With terrorists, we tend to at least know who they are when they blow themselves up.

So can we call Microsoft a terrorist when Vista blows up my computer?

Thankfully I can't use Vista anyway. I've tried to get it installed several times but after it detects and installs drivers for my video card (Nvidia 7900GT) Vista won't load at all unless I use safe mode, which is about as useful as Vista is to me anyway.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[Tony Hoyle]

I had one on XP just this week. Started up a machine that hadn't been booted for a while.. it deregistered itself, told me too much hardware had been changed (no hardware had been changed - the layer of dust on it proved that), then refused point blank to use the perfectly valid key that it had.

Then it gave me a week to sort it out. Sorting it out apparently involves a transatlantic call to the US (gonna be fun sorting out the timezone issues there).

What we actually did was retrieve the useful data and junk it (it was an old machine).

I'm moving to apple stuff.. still closed vendor lockin etc. but they don't pull tricks like that and TBH vista was the last straw. Got my eye on a tricked up macbook pro with VMWare Fusion on it so I can still do the windows reliant stuff.

Interestingly most of my friends already made the switch.. I was one of the last one with a windows laptop. OTOH half of them get the apple stuff cheap on a student discount.. I pay full price (albeit slowly, with business finance).

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[keypox]

the problem with all your arugements against vista/microsoft is that, most people such as students, businesses, hackers, and many other people. Need microsoft becasue thats where the programs are, i have atleast a dozen programs that have limited or no function of linux (ubuntu included) or mac. I even have programs that wont work on vista 64bit :(. So unfortunately it isnt microsoft creating the monopoly it is the software makers. And even with a mac you still are bound to use microsoft for things such as office. Yeah yeah i have heard "use open office" well oo sucks balls and is hardly compatible with office(if you dont believe me try making graphs and calculations, using commands like linest, in excel and send it back and forth). Even the mac office has problems on complex data sets and scripts from word and excel. So until you unix lovers and mac lovers can provide the mass with quality programs and games. We will listen to you tell us how much better and secure your linux and mac (aka, linux minus the great open community) is, while we use better programs, play better games and are happy to not be as smug because we think we are better than anyone else.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[caseih]

Apple actually doesn't use the TPM to lock MacOS to the machine. It turns out that MacOS merely requires a native EFI firmware to install and boot. That's it. Now that an EFI layer has been developed to run on normal PCs, you can actually install Leopard and do system updates and everything, running an unmodified kernel.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[Ilgaz]

How do you know what data is sent since it is all encrypted? A person much more knowledgeable than me wrote about it at http://windowssecrets.com/comp/060615/#story1

It does every single thing a spyware does and additionally, it is written by the same company who got access to your entire kernel source.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[techno-vampire]

How hard is it to hit "Validate"?

Why should I have to, especially for an OS that takes so much hardware to do so little? What is there about Windows iCandy that is so much better than anything else out there that I'd want to have it?

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[RoboRay]

"Why wouldn't you be able to comply with the request? Is your mouse and keyboard broken? How hard is it to hit "Validate"?"

From Iraq? Where my personal notebook has no connectivity? (I'm posting from my work machine, of course.) Not to mention where I'm only allowed 15 minute phone calls, so sitting on hold with their Indian call-center is out of the question?

It's pretty damn fucking hard to "validate" the software I own. So, I had to borrow a pirated version from a friend just to get my system working correctly. Brilliant strategy, Microsoft... "Let's force our legitimate customers to run pirated versions of our software so they see that there's really no point in buying it in the future!"

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[anethema]

You are wrong. The pirates could care less about WGA since all they have to do is wait for it to be cracked then they wont have to deal with it at all. In any copy of XP you download now, you almost never need a key, and you never need to do any fake activating. It is only the legitimate purchasers who suffer from this crap.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[Kijori]

You personally have had trouble with a legally purchased copy of Windows Vista and WGA? Or are you just parroting the vocal minority because that's the slashdot way? I have. WGA mistakenly identified my copy of Windows as being pirated; I never found out why. It was extremely annoying to turn on my PC and be unable to do what I wanted for no real reason, plus resolving the problem involved almost an hour on the phone to Microsoft. In fairness to them though, they were very reasonable on the phone and I don't know anyone else who has suffered the same problem. Fortunately for me I use Ubuntu for everything but games, so I didn't miss out on anything important, it was just an irritation. For other people the consequence could be rather more serious, and I'd like to see MS offering something in the way of compensation if they're mistaken.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[Anonymous Coward]

"Microsoft are no more 'treating their customers like thieves' than a store that has security tags on the clothes and a scanner by each exit. Amazingly, only the shoplifters get bent out of shape about those."

I don't know. If clothing worked like WGA, I could be wearing an expensive suit to a job interview when, suddenly, it decides to set off a loud alarm because it mistakenly thought it was taken from the store without being purchased. Or, perhaps, I'd be in the middle of an important presentation and my pants would fall down. Maybe I'd be getting dressed one morning and a gaudy message would appear across the suit saying "It appears you have changed your shirt and tie peripherals too much. Please revalidate your suit license with your local Microsoft tailor. Until you do, all suit size measurements will be 1 size too small."

Your analogy doesn't make any sense because after my purchase all that anti-shoplifting stuff should have been *removed* from the product. Instead, they are permanently hanging on the product.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[rtb61]

Well according to you, the /. way, would be to point out that WGA is in fact misspelt and should in reality be WG(dis)A, but then I suppose that might be considered inappropriate, everyone knows how upset the micro-softies get about 'M$' abbreviations ;).

If users have a problem with the software, and their time is wasted, they have every right to be upset and complain. It really is ignorant to side with a corporation against the consumer, when the corporation implements practices that they know will inconvenience the user, that they will lie about the inconvenience, they will also deny faults in the service and blame and attack users who have problems with the service, then after all that they will attempt to fix the faulty service while simultaneous denying it ever had any faults.

I also have had problems with WGA and that (P)OS Vista and though I was only using for a games boot, I un-installed Vista rather than continue to put up with it. In the work place of course it would be far more frustrating, thousands of dollars worth of productive labour lost due to some $100 OEM (P)OS software, do you not understand how users might really never forgive those kind of abuses.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[Bombula]

But I'm out about four hours of phone time, and one evening of no Windows computer. As I said to the tech support people - if I had just been dishonest and gotten a cracked version, I wouldn't have had those problems. Why they were insistent on punishing their legit customers, I don't know.

My time is worth $100/hour. Four hours of my time = $400. If it were me, that $400 expense would be charged back to Microsoft in the future in the form of pirated software.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft are no more 'treating their customers like thieves' than a store that has security tags on the clothes and a scanner by each exit. Amazingly, only the shoplifters get bent out of shape about those.

Do you modify your equipment? The WGA check is more like Microsoft coming around regularly and inspecting under those clothes to make sure it is still your body in there - even though you have already paid for your copy.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[sjames]

You must be kidding!! If anything, copyright infringement for MS products is declining. Back in the '80s, many people REALLY didn't know that MSDOS wasn't freely copyable.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[LoverOfJoy]

Sounds pretty typical for shareware.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[kurt555gs]

I wish I had mod points for this one. The original poster here really defines the word "Sheeple".

It is simply amazing what people will put up with from the likes of Microsoft because they are to afraid to try something new.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[Hes Nikke]

You personally have had trouble with a legally purchased copy of Windows Vista and WGA? Or are you just parroting the vocal minority because that's the slashdot way? Lets turn this around to privacy and the US government.... there is a common bad argument that goes 'If you're not doing anything than you have nothing to worry about.' Your statement above rings with that exact same argument. There is such a thing as innocent until proven guilty, and both the current government surveillance and WGA violate that basic human right.

WGA assumes you are a crook and phones home to see if it's right, otherwise, why would it phone home? The US government assumes that you're a terrorist, otherwise they wouldn't be going on fishing (phishing?) expeditions. I think that the reality is that both Microsoft and the US government are the terrorists!

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[Anonymous Coward]

"My Mac OS" - by angst_ridden_hipster (23104) on Sunday February 10, @05:41PM (#22373710) OpenBSD Will Not Fix PRNG Weakness

http://it.slashdot.org/it/08/02/10/0136236.shtml

("hot off the presses" today in fact - & YES, you are BSD-Unix derivant based too, just like OpenBSD/FreeBSD (or the original Berkeley strain(s)))

-----

"and Linux machines" - by angst_ridden_hipster (23104) on Sunday February 10, @05:41PM (#22373710) Linux Kernel 2.6 Local Root Exploit:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/08/02/10/2011257.shtml

(also "hot off the presses" today in fact)

-----

"may have their annoyances too" - by angst_ridden_hipster (23104) on Sunday February 10, @05:41PM (#22373710) Oh, not just "MAY", but, they surely do - plenty of "bugs", security-based bugs... lol!

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[Hes Nikke]

How 'bout a USB dongle?

The NT kernel takes a hardware inventory and if it doesn't find a dongle, it won't boot. Throw in some ReadyBoost flash, and you're golden.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[Nazlfrag]

For other people the consequence could be rather more serious, and I'd like to see MS offering something in the way of compensation if they're mistaken. Sure you are entitled to compensation. From the EULA:

18. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY AND REMEDIES. Notwithstanding any damages that you might incur for any reason whatsoever (including, without limitation, all damages referenced herein and all direct or general damages in contract or anything else), the entire liability of Microsoft and any of its suppliers under any provision of this EULA and your exclusive remedy hereunder (except for any remedy of repair or replacement elected by Microsoft with respect to any breach of the Limited Warranty) shall be limited to the greater of the actual damages you incur in reasonable reliance on the Software up to the amount actually paid by you for the Software or US$5.00. The foregoing limitations, exclusions and disclaimers (including Sections 15, 16 and 17) shall apply to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, even if any remedy fails its essential purpose. Don't spend it all at once.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical Linux shill who glazes over that they are in the minority in their opinion.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[sjames]

Even TPM is a bit much. On several occasions, I have restored service by yanking the drive out of a dead server and putting it in a spare. Adding an unnecessary failure mode is never the right thing. The problem is they perversely tend to kick you when you're down.

I suppose it can be OK on a basic desktop machine, but all of the various licence checks beyond enter a key to install are absolute disqualifications for servers or mission critical apps.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[blind biker]

YOU had to pay for the phonecharges??? Wow, man, that sucks!

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[JohnBailey]

Windows 98 was also released 10 years ago, when such piracy was not nearly as big a problem as it is today. Times changes, so must security. WGA is Microsoft securing their product. How do you suggest it figure out who stole it and who didn't without bothering you but still preventing pirates from getting their product for free? True enough.. back then, you could install as many copies as you liked with the same license number and nobody was any the wiser. So people took disks home from work, or got an install that came with a friend's computer and passed it around. Completely different.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[DiscipleN2k]

That's why you should just download a cracked copy and just avoid all the hoops those pesky "legitimate" copies make you jump through :p

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[revengebomber]

That's entirely, 100% false. Every bit of the Mac OS X that was developed by Apple is encrypted on the disk and requires a hardware decryption unit to run. To run on a normal PC (or a normal PC's motherboard, at least) all of the binaries have to be decrypted and the kernel has to be patched to ignore the nonexistant crypto chip and not try to re-decrypt. (There once was a user who whined...)

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[Jimithing DMB]

Um, no. OS X will not normally boot on a regular EFI machine. The Apple-supplied bootloader is an EFI program but it is located in the HFS+ volume, not the little EFI FAT partition. Even if you were to copy the boot.efi program to an EFI system's EFI partition you still wouldn't be able to boot OS X because boot.efi requires that it be able to read HFS+ volumes using Apple's HFS+ EFI service. You might have luck extracting the HFS+ driver from an Apple's ROM and putting it into that same little EFI FAT partition.

Netkas's "PC EFI" booter is nothing more than the Darwin/x86 bootloader with a few enhancements. Basically he took a source release I had made months earlier, fixed a few bugs, and released it (binary only) a few days before I finally got the gumption to do a new source release with the bugs fixed. Since then he's added a few things like GPT support and the ability to hard-code a device-properties blob to help with graphics card issues. Neither my booter nor his has anything at all to do with EFI. The OS X kernel does not really care much about EFI aside from needing a couple of simple data structures and a handful of stub functions.

Of course, even with my booter or his booter or using Apple's own boot.efi and HFS+ EFI driver on an EFI system you still run into the issue that Apple's binaries are encrypted. Granted it's trivial to write an alternative decryption routine that provides its own keys instead of grabbing them from the machine. Code to do this is widely available so OS X is for the most part fully hacked.

Still, once you hack it it theoretically works indefinitely. It doesn't go checking with Apple. It doesn't disable itself after a few days. It cannot do this because a real Mac does not do this.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[Killjoy_NL]

I had students adjust the clock many times to the wrong year and that flagged the WGA to see Windows as counterfeit every time.
All I say is "Thank god for Reborn cards"

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, our family had a Windows 95 installation that was bios locked. It was easily circumvented by putting a new hard drive in then reinstalling, then swapping that hard drive to whichever computer needed it.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[macs4all]

Um, I believe that MacOS X dropped the use of TPM-chip copy protection soon after it was introduced, and only a few notebook motherboards ever had TPM chips on them. In fact, I'm not sure if any retail versions of OS X nor any publicly-available Apple motherboards actually had TPM support.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[khellendros1984]

It's a reasonable position to take. I don't want my system to do something that's not in my best interests without asking me. I would like to point out that it is also (by a tremendous margin) a minority of people that will actually understand what the system is doing, and how it could affect them. They just see the nag box and click "ok" as fast as possible.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[Obsi]

Do you want the convenience of being able to simply go into a store, grab most any piece of software off the shelf, and know that as long as you have enough CPU and RAM it'll run right? Go Windows. Let's see you Linux users buy, say Crysis and install it without having to configure a bunch of stuff.

Do you want the control that comes with being able to specify exactly what software, even down to the module/feature level, is installed on YOUR computer? Go Linux. Let's see you Windows users try to go to add-remove programs to remove WGA, the Windows GUI, or upgrade the kernel with one command?

Do you want to be secure in the knowledge that if you create something, you will most likely be able to read it in 50 years' time with a high degree of reliability (dependent on media)? Go Linux. Type up even a basic Word 2007 document and we'll come back to that in 50 years' time to see if it can be read on then-modern hardware.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[cliffski]

Hurl abuse all you want, I have an O/S that I find easy to use, it came pre-installed at my request, it has features I like and use all the time, and in my opinion its the best O/S I've ever used. Sorry that I can't join you over there in the 'elite' who want to recompile their O/S every week, but like 99% of real people (or sheeple to you) I use the O/S to do work, not to fiddle with as a hobby.
The arrogant elitist slashdot attitude to vista is why linux is still used by virtually nobody in the mainstream. You don't persuade people to join you by insulting them.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[TheThiefMaster]

If it was for a job, you should probably have had the corporate edition of Windows XP, which doesn't need activating.

Which, of course, is why it was also the most pirated edition.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[RicardoGCE]

"Being in the minority" has nothing to do with anything. The number of people willing to put up with WGA doesn't remove its fundamental flaws. A glazed dog turd will never be a donut no matter how many people you get to eat it.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[Anonymous Coward]

The tagging system just seems to be unenforced these days.. like car alarms - people are so used to hearing them they blank them out.

I suspect the stores maybe use them more as a confirmation - security guard thinks he sees someone put something in bag, then the alarm goes off as conmfirmation and he acts. Alarms with no suspicion are ignored.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[Anonymous Coward]

I resent security tags and scanners, and I'm not a shoplifter. And they do make me feel like I'm being treated like a criminal.

Same with TSA. Same with security guards in grocery stores (!).

Hell, same with just about every run-in I've ever had with a cop. Never convicted of a crime in my life; never treated like I wasn't a criminal by a police officer in my life. Interesting...

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[Anonymous Coward]

The WGA shit catches more than just thieves though that's the problem. If I shell out money for an OS, it had better damn well work.

For instance, when I was writing my 2nd book (god bless that process is over) I had to install Windows because the editors only used Word. So I found one of my OEM CDs and used the key on the bottom of my laptop (yes, it was for the same version of XP). Turns out though that the key only works for Dell brand XP install disks, not the generic kind you buy at the store. So not only did I pay my MSFT tax [twice, I might add], but I wasn't allowed to use the OS properly until I called MSFT and explained the situation.

Now why the fuck should I be forced to call some baboo working in a MSFT call centre, and hope to god they just let me activate the damn OS.

Now on the other hand I plomp in a Ubuntu CD, which I obtained for free [well the cost of a CD-R]. Install the OS, then within less than an hour it's already fully updated and ready to be used. No activation, no running to the store to buy MS Office, or Visual C studio, or .... Sure I can't play Halo 3 or whatever, but that's why I own consoles which are far easier/faster/better for gaming anyways.

So no, WGA doesn't just annoy the pirates, y'arr, it be annoying to us legitimate type folk too!

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[xtracto]

- if I had just been dishonest and gotten a cracked version, I wouldn't have had those problems

What makes you dishonest for installing and using a copy of a software you paid for?

I know I do, I bought an HP computer and after my hard drive failed and I replaced it I could not use it because my backup disks were in another country, I called HP to ask them to send me new backup disks but they denied them to me (I was willing to pay) telling me I had to buy a new version. The heck with that! I downloaded a copy from a torrent and installed it. I have a sticker under my PC which says I have a license to use Windows XP, so I use windows XP.

If you bought the software and it does not work correctly just replace it with a copy that works correctly. After all, all software company care about is the "License", and you do have your license don't you?

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[knightri]

NO! I will make you a sheep, and keep you that way until all your teammates are dead. Friedmators - 70 Mage - Bleeding Hollow

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[Gordonjcp]

That's a very good point. Since I gave up on Windows around ten years ago, and have no intention of trying Vista, then I didn't know that and have clearly been talking out my arse.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[suman28]

Your analogy is completely incorrect. For starters, Windows is not calling Frys, Best Buy or any of the other sellers. It is calling the maker of the software. Secondly, if you bought a Ralph Lauren shirt, and you used it then that would be different. When you buy a Ralph Lauren shirt, and start making copies of shirt and selling them, or even giving them away for free, then Ralph Lauren company would come after you because you are illegally and illegitimately using their name to manufacture something they didn't authorize and they have every right to do so. So, why should Microsoft have any problems with doing this? How else do you expect them to see whether you are legitimate or not. Like it or not, if you want a branded copy of something, then pay for it and use it legally. Then you should not have any problems with WGA, or the OS. Is it a crappy OS, that does not do anything and not worth anything? Yes, but that is a different topic.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[Anonymous Coward]

so? I trust a billion dollar company with severe face to lose way more than I trust some bunch of hippies accountable to nobody who constantly fiddle with the kernel of their unix clone.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[techwrench]

I have a Dell that locked the copy of Office 2007 due to the "verification" issue.  The software was bought from a legitimate source (Dell), and yet refuses to update, and fell into reduced function mode after a WGA check.

Does this make a Thief, or a Pirate?

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[RicardoGCE]

Your analogy is completely incorrect. For starters, Windows is not calling Frys, Best Buy or any of the other sellers. It is calling the maker of the software. It's contacting a third party to make sure I'm "legit" after the transaction was finalized. It doesn't matter who it calls, it is calling.

Secondly, if you bought a Ralph Lauren shirt, and you used it then that would be different. When you buy a Ralph Lauren shirt, and start making copies of shirt and selling them, or even giving them away for free, then Ralph Lauren company would come after you because you are illegally and illegitimately using their name to manufacture something they didn't authorize and they have every right to do so. So, why should Microsoft have any problems with doing this? How else do you expect them to see whether you are legitimate or not. If I paid for the product (whether I bought it boxed or it came bundled with a new machine), then I am a legit user, and should not be hassled by anyone. How MS deals with those who do pirate their products is their problem, not mine. I can tell you, though, that treating everyone as a suspect is not the way.

Like it or not, if you want a branded copy of something, then pay for it and use it legally. If a user pays for the software, he is using it legally. The money has changed hands, the license has been granted. I object to let's-make-sure-you're-REALLY-clean-whenener-we-feel-like-it measures such as WGA for legitimate users

Then you should not have any problems with WGA, or the OS. Is it a crappy OS, that does not do anything and not worth anything? Yes, but that is a different topic. And if I'm not a terrorist I shouldn't care if the government eavesdrops on my emails and phone calls? Sorry, I've never bought into the "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" view. I have nothing to hide, period. And the makers of the products I use should take me at my word unless they have evidence that proves otherwise.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[AIkill]

I agree with you.
IMHO, M$ should do a verification, but only once, such as when the OS is doing its first update. When that happens, you need to run WGA just ONCE, and when it says that your OS is ok, it then should put a heavily encrypted file that is deemed by the OS to be a file that cannot be copied. Then when ever M$ needs to do verification during updates or the like, it can see that the file is there, and that this OS is ok. This, of course, is just a simplified version, but it should be doable.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[sootman]

The thing is, your software phones home repeatedly. Not just once upon activation. Can you say "single point of failure"? So your machine could go dark at any time. And are you really going to trust the same bunch of retards who had their service interrupted because they let a domain name expire?

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[alittlespice]

Actually that's a good comparison, and while I've never stolen anything from a store, I hate that I'm treated like a thief just for shopping. And it's very very annoying when you buy something, have it swiped to cancel the RFID tag or whatever and still have the alarm sound when you exit. Only to return to have the item reswiped, and then have the alarm go off again. At this point, the sales clerk usually just says "It's ok, go through" and you leave with the alarm going.

It gets worse, when you then go to another store, still carrying the same stuff you just bought, and having their alarm go off upon you ENTERING the store!

Granted, it would be better if no one stole shit, but making me, an innocent party suffer doesn't solve the problems.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[drcln]

Indeed, this is an old feature on my XP system. My (perfectly legal) copy of XP changes the the theme everytime I reboot (or it reboots itself after the increasingly frequent BSOD's). I've started to wonder if Microsoft is intentionally degrading XP with every update in order to nag me to pay for an "upgrade" to Vista.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[JohnBailey]

Typical Linux shill who glazes over that they are in the minority in their opinion. So an opinion is only valid if it is held by a majority? Do you also believe that the sun is revolving around the earth?

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[geekboy642]

I've never seen the original MS-DOS 6 floppies. I have multiple copies floating around, and I'm fairly sure they're at least third-generation copies.

DOS got pirated a LOT.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

[cliffski]

your water and electricity supplies to your house have a single point of failure. OH NOES!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm not vaguely worried about Microsoft going under. And even if they did, my O/S would still work perfectly. If I unplug the internet it still works. Whats your point?

desktop to black?

[Loconut1389]

That's a problem? I always keep my desktop black- who needs Ascent.jpg anyway?

Re:desktop to black?

[OMNIpotusCOM]

I gotta stop reading /. on Sundays. It seriously would not surprise me if the next topic posted on the next page was "An anonymous user writes in to ask 'Is my cat ugly?'"

Re:desktop to black?

[QBasicer]

SP1 is smart like that, and it recognizes your tendancies and sets random pictures of pink ponies and unicorns. Even worse, it also forces you to look at Bliss.jpg once in a while, using low jpg encoding and downscaled to 480*640.

Re:desktop to black?

[AndGodSed]

And the answer would invariably be: "Yes it is ugly, but does it run Linux?"

Re:desktop to black?

[owlnation]

If they were serious about WGA they'd just set the background to goatse.jpg

Re:desktop to black?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is my cat ugly?

Re:desktop to black?

[larry bagina]

Maybe they should use hello.jpg

Re:desktop to black?

[ampathee]

Put it on www.ratemypussy.com and find out!

Re:desktop to black?

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia, ugly cats question you!

Re:desktop to black?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm too chicken to find out if that's about cats or not- my gut says no.. Anyone brave enough?

Re:desktop to black?

[Anonymous Coward]

Definitely not cats.

Re:desktop to black?

[Dolohov]

I don't think it's a problem, per se: I think the idea is to set it to something unobtrusive that would show up in screenshots. Wait a month or so, then post Vista screenshots with a black desktop, and I bet you'll get email from Microsoft "encouraging" you to pay them for a "genuine" copy.

Re:desktop to black?

[Creepy Crawler]

Our lawyers have informed yada yada..

Dont look at this if you get offended THANK YOU!

(cant believe this isnt +5 funny)

Re:desktop to black?

[Tony Hoyle]

Damn.. thought that would be about cats. I like cats.

Re:desktop to black?

[Tony Hoyle]

But my vista always has a black desktop. And it's legit (MSDN).

Black screens aint gonna work.

Re:desktop to black?

[Dolohov]

Oh, I didn't say it was a foolproof method (or even a good idea). I just have the strong feeling that people posting Vista screenshots with black desktops are going to be suspected by Microsoft.

Re:desktop to black?

[zpeidar]

I believe that is hello.jpg.

That's what I was thinking..

[gQuigs]

They finally added a new feature to Vista.

What's New, Exactly?

[hksdot]

It seems that the draconian features present in Vista RTM have been replaced by nag screens and annoyances

So far in my Vista use, everything seems like an annoyance, and every screen is nagging. So far the changelog is 0 :/

Can I upgrade?

[mincognito]

Does anyone know if you can upgrade to SP1 if your Vista doesn't pass WGA? This one hour automatic logout is really starting to an

Re:Can I upgrade?

[ultramkancool]

Get a better crack. http://warez-bb.org/ should be able to help you

Re:Can I upgrade?

[Jugalator]

Someone just told me that it would help if I'd switch to Li

Re:Can I upgrade?

[gunnk]

Absolutely! No more one hour logouts! Just download the iso from h

Re:Can I upgrade?

[Ctrl-Z]

Then you would have a completely different probl

Re:Can I upgrade?

[BrentH]

Kudo's to Microsoft though: it appears they at least submit the message you were trying to type to /. before truly shutting down.

This is

[Anonymous Coward]

like shuffling the deck chairs on the titanic.

Re:This is

[JamesRose]

No, this is like [i]stealing[/i] the deck chairs on the titanic.

Re:This is

[DigiShaman]

Either way, they won't be going far as the whole ship is sinking. I believe that's the point the AC was trying to make. In other words, Vista is that shinking ship, so everything else is a moot point.

I'd be willing to live with that.

[Warll]

Honesty that seems kind of weak, the DRM "protecting" one dollar songs is much more disruptive. Now the "DRM" which stopped me from playing Halo 2(For Vista) before the street date was much more effective, it BSOD'd Windows. Mysteriously a few months later Halo 2 plays just fine. Of course by fine I mean despite being a few years old it somehow thinks it should be running at the same FPS as Crysis(Medium/DX10).

Re:I'd be willing to live with that.

[Chrutil]

don't you think your display driver was updated in the meantime?

Re:I'd be willing to live with that.

[Warll]

I find it unlikely that a game would need a driver update in order to display the game's start menu. Its even less likely when you think that Crysis didn't even need an updated driver to run, maybe not run well but it ran.

Re:I'd be willing to live with that.

[petermgreen]

most complex software has bugs. Those bugs are often reveled when a new peice of software interacts with them in new ways. Display drivers are no exception to this and a bug in a driver is the most likely cause of a bluescreen.

Re:I'd be willing to live with that.

[Chrutil]

>> I find it unlikely that a game would need a driver update in order to display the game's start menu. Its even less likely when you think that Crysis didn't even need an updated driver to run, maybe not run well but it ran.

I have written enough 3D application to know the hard way that when a 3D graphics application blue screens a machine, there are two likely causes -
Either the app is abusing Direct3D, or you have a bad graphics driver.
Since the problem 'fixed itself' by time my guess is the latter.

A kinder Writers Guild of America ?

[mbone]

Is this part of the strike settlement ? I hope the writers vote it down - I don't want any TV writers nagging me !

Re:A kinder Writers Guild of America ?

[sakdoctor]

I already tried that joke in reverse on a topic about the writers guild. Only got +3 funny

My Advantage

[LaskoVortex]

I got around not having a valid registration of vista: I select the NI (not installed) Mode. This mode comes with every non registered version of vista, but is not well known. The benefits are that you get unlimited access to the web and your files, your computer runs faster, your software choices are unlimited, and you don't have to put up with annoying adware. Since I've switched to NI mode, I've been more productive and had more time to spend on ./ because I spend less time dealing with the vista bugs.

Re:My Advantage

[blind biker]

I got around not having a valid registration of vista: I select the NI (not installed) Mode. This mode comes with every non registered version of vista, but is not well known. The benefits are that you get unlimited access to the web and your files, your computer runs faster, your software choices are unlimited, and you don't have to put up with annoying adware. Since I've switched to NI mode, I've been more productive and had more time to spend on ./ because I spend less time dealing with the vista bugs. One shouldn't have to do this, to have an obedient OS.

Re:My Advantage

[werdnapk]

Hey mods, the post is meant to be funny.

Re:My Advantage

[ScrewMaster]

And it was ... but perhaps a bit too subtle for some people. "Uninstalled Mode" indeed! I'm still running my Uncopy of Vista in Uninstalled mode myself.

Re:My Advantage

[FoolsGold]

Hrm. I took a different path to you - I got around the activation issue by using a pre-activated OEM version. PLUS it installed Service Pack 1 via Windows Update (using a hacked reg key) just fine. Now I have nice clean OS which runs all my commercial software that Linux can't. How about that. :)

Re:My Advantage

[Anonymous Coward]

..your software choices are unlimited

Yes, then you have the "freedom" to lose the functionality of 99% of available commercial software and to spend weeks trying to get wireless cards and video cards to work.

Re:My Advantage

[Anonymous Coward]

All the zealots here will say that not being able to run any commercial software is a "feature" of Linux. (I use Linux, but desktop Linux is definitely not ready for prime time.)

Kinda like my parents

[Anonymous Coward]

So it looks like Vista goes from abusive-dad mode to well-meaning-but-annoying-mom mode. No thanks, I'm still staying with the grandparents.

Yawn ... yet another Vista article

[Sepiraph]

I think we got the news. Yes, Vista is badddd ... We need a redundant tag if we don't have one already. Move along now, nothing to see here.

Re:Yawn ... yet another Vista article

[Ilgaz]

I think we got the news. Yes, Vista is badddd ... We need a redundant tag if we don't have one already.

Move along now, nothing to see here. It is not the code quality we talk about. If you think about it, Leopard is the most rushed OS Apple ever released. Thing is, how they treat customers even after Vista sales seems getting higher thanks to Lemming type customers and OEMs.

If a company told me "You have to prove me you are not a thief", I would simply re-package it, give it back.

I did, back in 2003, switching to OS X and G5 1600. Didn't lose anything at all even with PowerPC. Now the alternatives are lot more credible. They shouldn't dare to treat people like that.

There are some actual people (not at Digg etc, Usenet!) who asks where the hell is OS X Leopard DVD serial number since they can't imagine a company NOT asking them a serial number. Guess the OS they switched from?

Re:Yawn ... yet another Vista article

[drsmithy]

It is not the code quality we talk about. If you think about it, Leopard is the most rushed OS Apple ever released.

I'm thinking about it, but I cannot conceive of a single way it might be true.

There are some actual people (not at Digg etc, Usenet!) who asks where the hell is OS X Leopard DVD serial number since they can't imagine a company NOT asking them a serial number. Guess the OS they switched from?

It's easy to not need a serial number when you have the luxury of a hardware dongle.

Re:Yawn ... yet another Vista article

[Ilgaz]

It is not the code quality we talk about. If you think about it, Leopard is the most rushed OS Apple ever released.

I'm thinking about it, but I cannot conceive of a single way it might be true.

There are some actual people (not at Digg etc, Usenet!) who asks where the hell is OS X Leopard DVD serial number since they can't imagine a company NOT asking them a serial number. Guess the OS they switched from?

It's easy to not need a serial number when you have the luxury of a hardware dongle.

Hardware dongle? I didn't know Leopard was free upgrade for existing customers so paid around $200 for family license. It is NOT copy protected too. In fact- I did a local disk image of it to hard drive using Apple Disk Utility just in case a DVD accident happens.

It is basically "We trust you" attitude of Apple. They could be also SAVING money and prestige since no "My product serial doesn't work" or "My company clients shut themselves off" phone calls needed.

Re:Yawn ... yet another Vista article

[drsmithy]

Hardware dongle?

Yes. It's called a Mac. No Mac, no Leopard.

I didn't know Leopard was free upgrade for existing customers so paid around $200 for family license.

It wasn't (unless you happen to have bought a Mac within 30 days (I think - something like that) of its release).

It is NOT copy protected too. In fact- I did a local disk image of it to hard drive using Apple Disk Utility just in case a DVD accident happens.

It most certainly is copy protected. By a hardware dongle. You can only install it on a Mac which, by definition, a) you can only buy from Apple and b) already has a MacOS license.

It is basically "We trust you" attitude of Apple. They could be also SAVING money and prestige since no "My product serial doesn't work" or "My company clients shut themselves off" phone calls needed.

Sure, they "trust you", just like Microsoft "trusts you" - which is why the OS X EULA specifically forbids installation on non-Apple hardware. They just "trust you" with different methodologies. Mac OS X doesn't need a serial number because it has a foolproof way of verifying you've already paid for a previous copy of OS X - you own a Mac.

That's nice, but...

[Penguinisto]

As someone who has no use for Vista (and won't see it at work for at least a year due to the fact that his primary desktop there runs Fedora Core 8), I honestly couldn't care less what MSFT does with the thing.

Besides, it only shows one of these factors, none of which are good:

• Windows is an empire built on 'six floppies and xcopy'. I'm very willing to wager that the majority of folks (especially home users) who used Windows 3.1, got it "from a friend" on six copied floppies (seven w/ print drivers). MSFT probably realized this and is going back to their, err, 'viral' roots.
• They're desperate to get Vista adoption picked up faster (which ties in with the previous bullet, but kinda deserves its own)
• WGA is still broken badly enough that they didn't want to alienate the legit users who got trapped any further

In either case, none of this addresses the underlying bloat, bugs, and obviously creaking NT architecture, on an OS version that was allegedly rebuilt from the ground up. With most corporate folks likely holding off now for "Windows 7", and home users nursing XP. Vista likely won't make much difference now in either case...

/P

Re:That's nice, but...

[ddrichardson]

Funnily enough I've been wondering something similar. How much money does MSFT actually make from the sale of the operating system? OEM copies are much less than shop bought copies and I would assume the OEM value must at least cover their costs, so would it be viable to give (or as near as possible) away copies then recover that lost revenue from the increase in sales of their other products?

Quite apart from anything else it would mean no longer wasting money developing security measures and marketing campaigns on preventing Windows being copied. It would also further increase MSFT's spread into emerging markets and further their belief in promoting a de facto computing experience.

Me, I'll stay with Linux because I like it but I was just wondering...

Re:That's nice, but...

[Anonymous Psychopath]

They're desperate to get Vista adoption picked up faster (which ties in with the previous bullet, but kinda deserves its own) What good does it do to get Vista installed on more machines if they don't get paid for those copies? So confused. Your statement sounds like a circa-2000 .com business model.

Re:That's nice, but...

[Martin Blank]

Office is, and has been for years, the primary non-game breadwinner at Microsoft. The OSes are next, and the middleware falls third (sometimes going negative). Almost everything they do for Internet, though, is at a loss.

Re:That's nice, but...

[Loopy]

As someone who has no use for Vista (and won't see it at work for at least a year due to the fact that his primary desktop there runs Fedora Core 8), I honestly couldn't care less what MSFT does with the thing. Then why even reply to this thread if it doesn't affect you? Do you harbor a latent Vista-envy or desire to see Vista be most of what you want it to be so you can switch back to it? Are you just replying to foster your "+1 Vista Sucks" score? If we all already know Vista's flaws, how is this interesting and not redundant?

Re:That's nice, but...

[glitch23]

In either case, none of this addresses the underlying bloat, bugs, and obviously creaking NT architecture, on an OS version that was allegedly rebuilt from the ground up. With most corporate folks likely holding off now for "Windows 7", and home users nursing XP. Vista likely won't make much difference now in either case...

I think your argument holds up until you consider that many of the installed Vista userbase probably came from users buying new computers and not having a choice as to which OS they wanted on it. I'd wager that is the easiest and biggest method for MS to push Vista onto customers whether they want it or not.

Re:That's nice, but...

[Penguinisto]

They're desperate to get Vista adoption picked up faster (which ties in with the previous bullet, but kinda deserves its own) What good does it do to get Vista installed on more machines if they don't get paid for those copies? So confused. Your statement sounds like a circa-2000 .com business model.

Not really... They didn't get paid the majority of what they would otherwise be rightly owed for Windows 3.1, but they still turn a profit later on.

How? Simple... a lot MSFT's money doesn't come from individual users - it comes from businesses. If users at home are used to Vista and cozy with it, businesses have less resistance to shifting their workstations to it (as a business, you pay the same license fee per seat no matter which OS version you have installed...) After all, how often do you see the BSA get all anal about individual users? ;)

Home users (and to a small extent, OEM's) are only part of the pipeline feeding towards the real money: business licensing.

It all makes sense - MSFT going nuts about larger organizations shifting away from Windows, but really giving nearly the same amount of damn about OEM's stubbornly still selling machinery pre-loaded with XP.

/P

Re:That's nice, but...

[Penguinisto]

It's a Sunday morning, and I'm merely idling out thoughts here and there.

You (wrongly) assume that I harbor some sort of hatred or envy of Vista... but in reality I'm only exploring some options as to why MSFT would do this w/ WGA.

When you realize that Windows upgrade adoptions has slowed with each new iteration, coupled with each new iteration having stronger and stronger anti-copy and 'anti-piracy' measures...? Yes, I realize that correlation != causation, but the coincidence is getting a bit too strong in this instance for me (and many others, I suspect) to not notice.

/P

Re:That's nice, but...

[genericpoweruser]

That's EXACTLY how I got stuck with it. I bought my laptop shortly before OEM vendors went back to supporting XP.

Re:That's nice, but...

[Penguinisto]

I think your argument holds up until you consider that many of the installed Vista userbase probably came from users buying new computers and not having a choice as to which OS they wanted on it. I'd wager that is the easiest and biggest method for MS to push Vista onto customers whether they want it or not.

I agree that those who buy new machinery at the low/budget end don't have much choice. But, consider that OEM's are still selling Windows XP on their more popular computer product lines, and that, as you stated, the majority of Vista's userbase is from folks who have no other choice. This means that uptake is slow among all the other avenues (e.g. upgrading existing machinery, beige-boxers, gamers, and the like). Now how do those in the other avenues get their OS install more often than not? Most aren't going to shell out $499 for Vista Ultimate (or even $99 for the base version) just to discover that it's crap... many want to test it out before payment somehow, and WGA isn't going to let them do that very well. This is where WGA comes in. It's obvious (IMHO) that MSFT is going out of its way to stop alienating those who install copies, so the question arises... why would they?

/P

Re:That's nice, but...

[Threni]

I use Vista as there's a 64 bit version which is more stable than XP 64. Having said that, a Vista version of SP1 for .NET 2.0 would be nice.

Re:That's nice, but...

[maxume]

Not per box sold, but they make(income, revenues are higher) about $11 billion a year on operating systems, and about $10 billion on 'business products':

http://www.microsoft.com/msft/reports/ar07/staticversion/10k_fr_dis.html

The margins are higher in the operating systems business, and 80% of that business is OEM sales, so I don't think they are subsidizing the OEM channel. It probably has to do with the big chunks of retail sales that are in store mark up and wholesale mark up(these can easily represent more than 50% of the price you pay), and the fact that they let OEMs do all the work, so OEM revenue is essentially free(incrementally anyway).

Re:That's nice, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Craftily worded bias

Re:That's nice, but...

[Penguinisto]

Not really. I (personally) find Vista to be inferior, but I have no axes to grind nor bread that needs buttered.

/P

Re:That's nice, but...

[Anonymous Psychopath]

I understand your point, but your assumptions are flawed.

With Windows 3.1, Microsoft needed market share. Today, they already have the market share. It doesn't make sense to permit or encourage piracy of your OS when you already have 90%+ of the desktop market share. That's just bad business. Windows 3.1 was 16 years ago. The situation isn't anywhere near the same today.

Users influence corporate IT strategy to a small extent when it comes to desktop OS, but corporate resistance to Vista has to do with support and hardware churn costs, not user familiarity. After all, from a user perspective there really isn't much difference. They still have a start button in the lower-left corner, they still have desktop icons and a system tray, and they still call IT when their applications don't do what they expect. I suspect businesses will begin adopting Vista more aggressively during 2008 as their applications become supported and their hardware gets refreshed.

The BSA doesn't go after individual users because they are interested in the money from fines, and individual users don't have enough money to make it worth their effort. Also, the BSA relies on whistle-blowers, and it's unlikely that someone will call the BSA to report themselves.

Home users are a small part of the pipeline. OEMs are a huge part of the pipeline.

I'm not sure what you mean by your last sentence. I think you're saying that Microsoft doesn't care if OEMs load XP instead of Vista? While some OEMs will now offer you a choice, please show me any major OEM that does not automatically select Vista when you build a system.

Lastly, if it was good for business for Microsoft to permit their OS to be pirated, WGA simply wouldn't exist.

stupid

[ILuvRamen]

If they gave out Vista for free to everyone with free licensing with no restirctions at all, that still wouldn't encourage people to use it. Pirates are smart, they don't want Vista! They don't want to steal Vista, sell Vista, or use Vista no matter how much they dim down the "trial" state of the OS or whatever they call it.

Re:stupid

[calebt3]

...because their computers can't handle it, and any new ones they buy would have a valid copy.

You May Be a Victim of Software Counterfeiting

[monschein]

Nice popup window. Wait, who's the victim again?

Re: You May Be a Victim of Software Counterfeiting

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows Vista: Anything but a victimless crime.

Re: You May Be a Victim of Software Counterfeiting

[Anonymous Coward]

You are. The ones having fun at your expense are (quite literally) the pirate group which installed the trojans to your copy and micro$oft laughing all the way to the bank thanking every single pirate for their massive success with the lock-in.

Re: You May Be a Victim of Software Counterfeiting

[RonnyJ]

If the copy of Windows is from a computer seller using dodgy copies without the buyer knowing, then both the user and Microsoft are 'victims'.

Re: You May Be a Victim of Software Counterfeiting

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. If you knew anything about the scene you'd know this doesn't happen. Release groups care far more about their reputation and sticking it to MS to do something like that. For the most part they're just dedicated individuals who enjoy circumventing copyright protection and DRM, that's all the motivation they need.

Re: You May Be a Victim of Software Counterfeiting

[rastoboy29]

Hey, the richest man in the world thinks you're stealing from him.  Try to be sensitive.

I dont see the big deal...

[ijitjuice]

If you bought something, activate it, and boom! (steve jobs anyone?!?) you're done. No annoyance! All this screaming about DRM could be easily read as, "I want access to tools and products that you made for free so that i can enjoy myself or make a living using your work because i have a high-speed internet connection and you charge for your products." If most of us were content creators that did this for a living we'd probably look at the issue a lot differently. Full-time developers are not gonna dev for free, and the common tools in the industry arent available for free, neither are the laptops, workstations, and space in which we work. Red bull, caffeine, twinkies, venti latte's all cost money, and if the product isn't protected well where o where does this magical product come from?

Re:I dont see the big deal...

[jfim]

It's a bit annoying because activation can sometime misfire or require more than a couple clicks of the mouse. For example, my installation of Vista got hosed during the holidays and, after reinstalling it, it required activation. However, the activation wizard mentioned that "This key is already in use", so I had to call their activation center to validate with a human being that "my copy of Vista died and I'm reinstalling it". It's a waste of five minutes I could have avoided. I wonder how much it costs Microsoft to process those phone activation requests.

Re:I dont see the big deal...

[david_thornley]

If you bought something, activate it, and boom! (steve jobs anyone?!?) you're done. No annoyance!

And if it were that simple, nobody would be complaining.

One issue is that the OS keeps checking. What if it decides it isn't valid?

Another issue is that it sends an unknown set of information to Microsoft, to see if the OS is legit.

Another issue is that, if you change the hardware setup, the OS might decide it's not legit. This is not an acceptable behavior in servers, and is a real pain in general.

Re:I dont see the big deal...

[Headcase88]

You have to admit the lock-in is pretty fierce. An OS could be better and cheaper than Windows (an uphill battle since OSs are an economy of scale), we'd still be screwed because without the market share, no one will make apps for it. The way the OS market works (especially in the business sector), the head start 3.1 got (from being better, among other things) has carried over and made it more and more impossible over time for anyone else to penetrate the market even if they have a way better OS.

If somehow the coffee market became this way, and the lone company providing coffee charged $50 for a terrible tasking venti latte, and sold them in cheap cups that were known to leak frequently, I wouldn't be thrilled with that either. But stealing them wouldn't be fair to coffee manufacturers, right?

Still a Toy.

[gweihir]

No professional product could afford to do something like WGA, kinder now or not. WGA illustrates what Windows really is: A tpy, that you cannot depend on and that, incidentially, is not intended to be dependable in the first place. Anybody relying on it gets what they deserve for gross incompetence.

Re:Still a Toy.

[cnettel]

I think you would be surprised to see what kinds of draconian licensing schemes are still out there for special-purpose (and highly professional) software. It's the same class of products that can get away with a crappy installer and even possibly quite specific requirements of OS, since they have their market and the product, when it works, actually adds a lot to productivity.

WGA

[Keruo]

Now it turns Aero on and changes my pretty black background? fuking hell.

Their "new" behaviour is my current setup

[hipsterdufus]

Aero is off and my background is black. Why waste resources with extra stuff that doesn't improve the end-user experience. All that stuff does is show off how much you like to waste time by customizing your desktop. Vista with Aero and all that stuff is like the myspace.com of the desktop: most of it is just useless clutter.

I do have ReadyBoost via a usb drive; however, I can't say I notice any difference.

Re:Their "new" behaviour is my current setup

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Aero doesnt slow down your pc unless you have a crap video card. If you have a good one, Aero improves performance.

I have the Magic® copy!

[headkase]

My install of Vista works perfectly - it even runs Alpha Centauri a Win 98 application and every single one of all my 50+ games. Granted most of those games target the XP architecture so the chances of them working are good to start off with. I've never had a problem with WGA either on XP (when I used it) or now Vista. But I guess when you actually pay for your key instead of generating it and actually have modern hardware then things Just Work®. If productivity was my thing I'd be using Linux right now but entertainment wise its a Windows world.

Re:I have the Magic® copy!

[Koiu Lpoi]

"But I guess when you actually pay for your key instead of generating it and actually have modern hardware then things Just Work®."

Nice to see you think everyone who has WGA problems has an outdated computer and is a thief. Let me tell you, not only are you wrong, you need to open your eyes to things that people have said in even this very news story.

Then again, if productivity isn't "your thing", you're probably too young to care.

Re:I have the Magic® copy!

[Raineer]

Hope you never need a new graphics card, motherboard, CPU, etc...

Why are you using Vista in the first place?

[dircha]

Commentators here make a big deal about using the right tool for the job.

Tell me. For what job is Microsoft Vista, the right tool?

I can't think of one.

It's wrong for office workers.
It's wrong for gamers.
It's wrong for developers... unless your job revolves around developing native client applications for Vista. Good luck with that.

Re:Why are you using Vista in the first place?

[m0i]

It's wrong for gamers. Ever heard of DX10? Granted, no widespread adoption yet, but still, that'd be one reason for gamers to move to Vista.

Re:Why are you using Vista in the first place?

[Kavli]

It was supposed to be the right tool for lining Mr. Ballmer's pockets.

Re:Why are you using Vista in the first place?

[BrentH]

About three games really use it, but do no lok much better than beefed up dx9 game... And all games run about 20% slower, even Microsofts own DX10showcase game (FlightSimX). I'm a gamer and Vista will never be on my system.

Re:Why are you using Vista in the first place?

[Elgonn]

In all honesty it is right for tablets.

Re:Why are you using Vista in the first place?

[onedotzero]

I'm quite happy with it for casual gaming (HL2 era - though it's only my graphics card holding me back on that front). I also develop with it (webdev though, so it's fairly irrelevant here). No complaints from me.

Re:Why are you using Vista in the first place?

[Trouvist]

Ever heard of OpenGL? It works on everything. And it doesn't have arbitrary lockin per OS (like DirectX 10 does). Don't you remember the team that got DX10 to work on XP?

Ugly?

[ROMRIX]

Here KDE, KDE, KDE!!

Sorry... it was there, I had to say it.

does this fix bootcamp + parallels?

[bwy]

I run Vista in a bootcamp partition and also use that partition as a virtual machine in parallels. Well, I "TRY" to do this.... What happened was, the hardware looks so different between the two that Microsoft deactivated both of them, I believe. I'm a little fuzzy on what happened really because I wasn't aware that it "would" happen, since Parallels advertises this feature pretty heavily. I thought they could treat it like a laptop, with a docked and undocked mode. Anyway, it took about an hour or more to fix the boot camp side, and the parallels side doesn't work, it is still inactivated. For the record, I legitimately own a Vista license. I had to first muck around with some crappy UI trying to reestablish a network connection in some rubbish single user mode (using a wired mouse since my mighty mouse bluetooth no longer had the drivers loaded.) I finally got it reconnected and then it said that it couldn't activate me online. So I had to call someone at what I suppose to be an offshore call center. I had to read this guy like 40 characters off my screen, and he read back a bunch of characters that I had to key in. This part was tedious and it was way more characters that what would seem necessary. In the end I felt like a total criminal. After buying Vista Ultimate, I felt like a criminal. I can install Ubuntu for free and not feel like a criminal, and I can donate $20 to Ubuntu or another distro and really feel good about myself. I don't believe the Bootcamp/VM setup violates the EULA for Ultimate because they are just different ways of launching the same image. If this is a violation, certainly a docked and undocked laptop violates it. ANYWAY, now that I'm done ranting (sorry), my question. Does RC1 fix all this?

Re:does this fix bootcamp + parallels?

[jzhos]

I don't believe the Bootcamp/VM setup violates the EULA for Ultimate because they are just different ways of launching the same image. If this is a violation, certainly a docked and undocked laptop violates it. Think again! you are running the same image on two different machines. One real and one virtual with totally different hardware to the OS's point of view. As far as I can tell, WGA works correctly as it intended. If you want to blame, you have to blame Parallels for false ad. And they didn't virtualize exactly the underlying hardware.

Re:does this fix bootcamp + parallels?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's what you people go through that makes me not bother buying Windows. Why bother? You're a criminal either way. If you buy Windows they will always check you for a 'contraband copy'. If you use Linux you are motivating the developers continual infringement on hundreds of so called patents. If you torrent Windows at least you're not afraid to admit to yourself that you are a criminal, and as an added bonus you won't be fucked by a minor WGA burp.

I am a criminal, and WGA is of no concern to me. Something is wrong with that.

Re:does this fix bootcamp + parallels?

[Sinbios]

Wait, Bootcamp and Parallels didn't work as advertised, so Vista sucks?

Re:does this fix bootcamp + parallels?

[bwy]

Think again! you are running the same image on two different machines. One real and one virtual with totally different hardware to the OS's point of view.

It is a thin line here, because one could say that with certain docking stations, you are running with totally different hardware, yet this is apparently allowed by Microsoft. I look at it this way- can I run both images at the same time? If not, they're not truly separate. Obviously, this isn't the litmus test that Microsoft uses, but maybe they should. In my case there is but one piece of physical hardware, and all the bytes on disk that make up the proprietary operating system only exist once. I only installed Windows once, and I didn't copy that install anywhere.

From what I gather I would have similar issues if I were a chronic machine rebuilder. I used to be one of those guys but I'm glad I'm not anymore. A weekend spent swapping out hard drives, video card, and other components will almost certainly lock down Vista from what I gather. I guess I just don't get it.... supposedly piracy is this huge problem yet the people willing to shell out the money are the ones who lose out. I can guess that there is a pirated version of Vista floating around somewhere that has none of the issues that the version I paid for has. This is similar to the DRM restrictions for those who decide to legally buy their digital music (although thankfully this is changing.)

Re:does this fix bootcamp + parallels?

[Anonymous Coward]

How dare you NOT blame Microsoft for problems that are not their fault! I see a clueless mod got to your informative/funny comment.

Re:does this fix bootcamp + parallels?

[Cro Magnon]

Yes, because the reason they don't work right is Microsoft's stupid license enforcement.

Re:does this fix bootcamp + parallels?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look around the torrent sites for one of those Dell pre-activated Ultimate edition ISO's. They have a tiny dell logo in some of the preference.. err.. 'apps' and that's about it. It will never bother you about activation. Works great with bootcamp+parallels. Well, maybe not 'great', but you know what I mean :P

black background should be the default

[greenslashpurple]

First thing I do when I log into _any_ Microsoft box (and I log into quite a few for work purposes) is turn off the ugly wall-papers and set the background colour to black. In fact, I do this on all my Macs as well. I guess most people prefer the clutter of an ugly wall-paper or background image.

Good

[Toreo asesino]

I've never ceased to be amazed about how many people that run Windows deal quite happily with 1000 popups from various spyware that's installed over the years, completely oblivious to the fact that this behaviour is very non-standard. Just as long as they can read their emails, chat to friends, and open Word and Excel they're happy.

This will be just another of those popups that gets closed without a second thought.

Re:Good

[steevven1]

Not only that, but when the popups and adware and unnecessary background programs become too much for the users you speak of, they simply say "oh, my computer must be getting old, and I must need a new one!" Perhaps it's best for Microsoft and PC manufacturers to allow adware and annoying software to run rampant, but then again, perhaps that's why so many amateur users are now switching to Macintosh.

WGA

[Anonymous Coward]

WGA Under Vista SP1 No Longer Strikes.

I'd prefer....

[grilled-cheese]

I would rather have M$ spend their time making WGA more accurate than just changing the false (or not) symptoms of WGA.

Expensive product?

[tkrotchko]

"It's an expensive product"

It's only an expensive product because people have tricked themselves into believing there are no alternatives.

Windows 3.1 was $130 and commonly discounted to $80. That was for the whole OS, not split up so you have 4 different versions. The top price was $80. The cost was low because Microsoft had competition.

Now that the installed based is two orders of magnitude greater, the price should be cheaper or maybe the same. Even the cost of Apple's computers dropped significantly. But for MS Windows, the cost doubled or tripled. All because consumers refuse to use alternatives. We're our own worst enemy.

So this argument is an ironic one in that once Microsoft made Windows the most expensive piece of software on your computer, they had to put in place lots of things to "protect" it against people who didn't get the message that you pay whatever Microsoft wants for an operating system.

In any event, this argument misses the point. WGA was put in place because Microsoft has no more market-share to get. They only have two place to get more money... charging more money for Windows, and reducing the amount of piracy. So WGA has been designed solely to reduce piracy rates of windows a few percentage points.

Irony again! To make another few million dolalrs, MS decided to irritate every customer with new types of monthly checks to make sure you're "Genuine".

And I wonder if pirates who know what they're doing are bothered by WGA in the least?

Re:Expensive product?

[Nocturnal Deviant]

no...no....were not bothered at all, haven't bought windows since 95....wga was a minor nuisance, easily taken care of with full updates enabled now...though i only use windows for gaming, for everything else i run either Slackware, Fedora, or Kubuntu, the day i even waste time pirating vista....is the day i cut my balls off and feed them to Microsoft because ill have gone lower than low...

Re:Expensive product?

[RMingin]

Nope. A bit of hex editing and your 'legit' OEM BIOS is no different from the ones on real Dell or HP or IBM PCs.

MS won't blacklist it either, since it would piss off the bread'n'butter to do so. Can't even make a bios version/system details whitelist, since it would have to be updated for every new CTO rig or system model a big OEM makes!

Piracy. The nag-free way to play with Monopoly-ware OSes.

Re:Expensive product?

[calebt3]

Microsoft made Windows the most expensive piece of software on your computer That would depend on whether or not you pirate any component of Adobe's Creative Suite or proprietary 3D modeling software.

Re:Expensive product?

[drsmithy]

It's only an expensive product because people have tricked themselves into believing there are no alternatives.

It's not an expensive product. Especially for the vast majority of people, who get it "free".

Windows 3.1 was $130 and commonly discounted to $80. That was for the whole OS, not split up so you have 4 different versions. The top price was $80. The cost was low because Microsoft had competition.

Ignoring for a second just how much more functionality Vista delivers over Windows 3.1, you need to a) include the price of DOS, and b) account for inflation. Windows 3.1 ("Full Version" retailed at US$150. I couldn't find a price for DOS 5.0 in 1991 with a cursory search, so I'll estimate it at about US$50.

US$200 in 1992, is worth about US$300 today. Looking at Microsoft's site, we see that Vista Home Premium ("Full Version") is US$239. Heck, even if you leave DOS out completely, US$150 inflates to US$225, only a hair cheaper.

Now that the installed based is two orders of magnitude greater, the price should be cheaper or maybe the same. Even the cost of Apple's computers dropped significantly. But for MS Windows, the cost doubled or tripled.

Utter crap. It's actually less (or, at worst, basically the same). Take into account the additional functionality (media player, movie maker, networking, web browser, media centre, etc) and it's massively cheaper. It's certainly not within a bull's roar of having "doubled or tripled".

All you people who keep saying Windows is getting more expensive over time are either a) stupid (because you haven't bothered to actually check), or b) liars (because you have worked it out and chose to ignore what you found). But, then again, 99% of the criticism levelled at Vista falls into the same cateogories, so its to be expected.

Re:Expensive product?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wiat wait, are you actually claiming that vista is more functional than Windows 3.1?

thats the biggest load of bullshit I've ever heard...

I'm sorry, but I've spent a lot of time trying to configure other peoples vista machines for them, and I've found that vista has so many issues its simply not worth the money they are asking for it.
I've never had to spend money on a Microsoft software package because of my student status, but I still would refuse to recieve a FREE copy of vista, the amount of pain I've suffered attempting to bring vista away from its annoying state, to a functional more user friendly less aggravating piece of software was enough for me to acknowledge that I will never use windows vista.
I'm sorry, if you honestly thing vista is a good piece of software, you're just as ignorant as my girlfriend's bro-in-law who has a vista machine.
When your operating system somehow manages to reverse Rx Tx signals, there is a problem...

Additionally, have you used a Mac?
OsX comes with a huge software set that at the very least, rivals the software set that comes with Microsoft Windows.
And as such the price should be comparable, but its not.
as shown below, Mac OS-X pricing is far superior to vista pricing.

        Vista Pricing:

                * Vista Home basic: $199
                * Vista Home Premium: $239
                * Vista Business: $299
                * Vista Ultimate: $399

        Other OS Pricing:

                * Ubuntu Linux: $0
                * Apple OSX Tiger: $149
                * Apple OSX Tiger (5 Licenses): $199

This shows that 5 copies of OS-X are attainable for the most basic single license copy of vista that is currently available.

Now considering the capabilities of these operating systems are nearly identical other than the gap in game portability, the pricing of vista is inflated a ridiculous amount.
Additionally take into Account that OS-X has a linux core at heart, and you prove that the Microsoft Windows Alternative is a joke.

I'm sorry, but claims that vista is well worth the money is an ignorant statement, I don't mean to be a jerk, but you're the one who started calling names :)

--Anonymous Coward formerly known as Twiner

Re:Expensive product?

[genericpoweruser]

Microsoft would call me a pirate even though Windows came with my machine. It was Vista and it irritated me to no end. I eventually downgraded to XP but since M$ decided only Vista Business could do that I had a few choices: (1) Keep Vista. Out of the question. (2) Buy XP. Yeah right! (3) "Pirate XP". That's the best I could do. If I were to use WGA my installation would stop working after 30 days (or after I set the clock to the right time...). Fortunately, in XP, WGA is optional--all you have to do is uncheck it when the OS wants to update. And never use fully automatic updates because it tries to trick you sometimes.

Re:Expensive product?

[Tony Hoyle]

Yeah CS3 is pretty insane. My wife wanted photoshop, flash and dreamweaver for christmas. I figured about £300 the lot.

Only one with both in them is 'design premium' which has a load of crap she won't use. That's $1800. Bad enough.. £925 - I really wasn't prepared to swallow that in one lump but could learn to live with it. Then I realized they'd carved up the market and you couldn't legally import it. They want £1,700 ($3,300). Nearly double. My car didn't cost that!

Now photoshop is probably good.. but FFS do they actually sell any at that price?

Re:Expensive product?

[Anonymous Coward]

One other thing, DOS was included in the price of Windows 3.1

--Anonymous Coward formerly known as Twiner

Re:Expensive product?

[toddestan]

Your pricing is way off. For example, you can buy Vista Home Premium for $110 (link). That's $39 cheaper than OSX Tiger. And the upgrade version is even cheaper than that, which is pretty much the equilivent to what Apple is selling you anyway, since that OSX Tiger disk is only good for computers that originally came with OSX anyway.

Re:Expensive product?

[C0vardeAn0nim0]

"It's not an expensive product. Especially for the vast majority of people, who get it "free"."

you're dead WRONG! it's not free for a long stretch. here in brasil HP sells presario notebooks preloaded with mandriva linux for R$ 1500,00. the VERY SAME hardware with windows goes for R$ 1800,00.

when you have the two of them side-by-side in the same shelf on a wall-mart, carrefour or extra store, the real cost of OEM windows becomes clear.

to put things in perspective, the national minimun wage is R$ 380,00 a month.

Re:Expensive product?

[owlnation]

Ignoring for a second just how much more functionality Vista delivers over Windows 3.1, you need to a) include the price of DOS, and b) account for inflation. Windows 3.1 ("Full Version" retailed at US$150. I couldn't find a price for DOS 5.0 in 1991 with a cursory search, so I'll estimate it at about US$50.

So much of your post is short-sighted. You are not seeing the big picture at all. The OP was essentially correct.

Firstly, your rate of inflation is deeply suspect.

Secondly, "just how much more functionality vista delivers" -- actually not that much more utility at all, in all truth. Yes, there's the Networking and Internet tools now that 3.1 didn't have. But in reality Vista is essentially much the same set of tools (especially true if you compare 3.11 rather than 3.1). Which only goes to further prove how horrifically bloated it is.

Thirdly, forget the DOS price. Then, as now, most machines came bundled with MS products, the only reason to pay for 3.1 or vista is to upgrade from the previous version. (despite MS attempts to squeeze more cash out of everyone with 7 versions of vista) You didn't need to upgrade DOS as well as windows. So that's a non sequitur.

Fourthly, hardware and software has -- almost exclusively -- become cheaper over the past 20 years. This is true for OSX and its predecessors. This is NOT true for Windows.

In particular OSX Leopard is cheaper than Vista, and it has has far more utility, as well as being a more advanced operating system.

No, sorry. As I said the OP is correct. MS is well aware that it has sewn up the corporate market, and that this means that many people will choose to use MS products at home since they are familiar with them. They are deliberately using this advantage to maximize the cost of the software. In fact they are probably required to do so by corporate law. Understandable, but not admirable.

Just as with the browser market, the day will come when they have competition again in the OS market. That's the only time MS customers are going to get a fair deal.

Re:Expensive product?

[aussie_a]

Nice try. But how much is the computer? Because most people will need one, and when they buy it, the hardware will subsidize the software for the next X amount of years (until they stop supporting it which I believe is typically 5 years).

On the other hand my computer running Linux is more then capable of running Windows Vista.

Re:Expensive product?

[Oktober Sunset]

Its not like its the only thing thats gone up in price, Mars bars used to be under 30p, now they are almost 50p and not as big. Just 3 years ago, I could get double vodka and coke for £1 at the bar, and now I only know one place where I can get a single for that much. Prices on everything are increasing at a much faster rate than the suppose rate of inflation but I don't see our salaries doubling in 3 years do you? We're all getting ripped off and made fools off, not just by MS, but by the entire corporate class.

Re:Expensive product?

[vbraga]

The laptop receives tax breaks from government. The Windows OEM price can't be discounted, due to legal reasons and so on. It's an artificial price.

National minimum wage maybe 380 reals (about 190 dollars), but state minimums are usually more. Federal minimum wage is kept down due to expending with Social Security.

I'm not a Microsoft fanboy, but if want to voice your opinion, please, understand first the topic you're talking about.

It's almost free for majority of users. It's free for most undergraduates out there, through MSDN Academic Alliance. It's almost a negligible cost for new machines. Upgrades are cheap too.

That doesn't make WGA less annoying or the software better. But it's not expensive, in any way.

Re:Expensive product?

[petermgreen]

                Vista Pricing:

                                * Vista Home basic: $199
                                * Vista Home Premium: $239
                                * Vista Business: $299
                                * Vista Ultimate: $399

                Other OS Pricing:

                                * Ubuntu Linux: $0
                                * Apple OSX Tiger: $149
                                * Apple OSX Tiger (5 Licenses): $199

Ahh, nice twisted way to present the figures.

Mac OS-X can according to it's license only be installed on apple hardware which WILL have come with some version of OS-X. That makes it effectively an upgrade release.
The "5 licenses" figure for OS-X you give is home users only and all the machines must be in the same household. Now there is no question that it's a pretty good deal but how many households really have 5 macs that they want to upgrade at once?

looking at upgrade prices on newegg only ultimate is more expensive than your figure for an OS-X upgrade.

Re:Expensive product?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since it's not expensive, could you give me a legit copy? I mean, you seem to think that's it's pretty close to free.

Re:Expensive product?

[Bonobo_Unknown]

I agree, it would seem that we've been experiencing high inflation for the last 10 years, but because most reserve banks don't want to see that they use a very narrow definition of inflation in order to justify things like cutting interest rates instead of increasing them.

Re:Expensive product?

[GaryPatterson]

OS X is sold at retail as a full release, not an upgrade. Wipe the hard drive and it'll install with no problems and no checks for previous media.

I'm not getting into the argument of whether OS X or Vista is cheaper, because frankly I don't care, but it's not true that OS X retail boxes are upgrades and you shouldn't slant the numbers by comparing OS X retail to Vista upgrades.

By the way, to get value out of the family licence for OS X, you'd only need two Macs and you've saved $100 over the cost of the separate retail boxes. There are two Macs in my household, making it a good deal. The two Windows licences we have (also on the Macs) are Vista and XP and there are no deals there to save us money.

Re:Expensive product?

[petermgreen]

but it's not true that OS X retail boxes are upgrades
Does the license let me install it on any machine I want? NO! does every machine the license lets me install it on come with a previous version? YES! That is pretty much the definition of an upgrade copy IMO.

Re:Expensive product?

[drsmithy]

OS X is sold at retail as a full release, not an upgrade. Wipe the hard drive and it'll install with no problems and no checks for previous media.

For fuck's sake. Of course it doesn't "check for previous media". It doesn't *need* to. By virtue of the fact you're installing it onto a Mac, you've already paid for an OS X license.

I'm not getting into the argument of whether OS X or Vista is cheaper, because frankly I don't care, but it's not true that OS X retail boxes are upgrades and you shouldn't slant the numbers by comparing OS X retail to Vista upgrades.

Every version of OS X you can buy is priced as an upgrade. Period. This is irrefutable. IFF you are ever able to purchase a Mac without a bundled copy of OS X, or Apple allows you to install OS X on non-Apple hardware, then you might be able to argue that Retail versions of OS X are not priced as upgrades, but not before.

Re:Expensive product?

[Beer_Smurf]

OSX Tiger comes complete and should be compared to Ultimate NOT Home.

Re:Expensive product?

[drsmithy]

So much of your post is short-sighted. You are not seeing the big picture at all. The OP was essentially correct.

No, the OP is flat-out wrong. As demonstrated by known, verifiable facts.

Firstly, your rate of inflation is deeply suspect.

My "rate of inflation" is whatever is reported by the numerous inflation calculators. Which, given they're probably based on government figures, is likely to be much lower than actual inflation (ie: if anything Vista is even cheaper than the calculations above would suggest).

Secondly, "just how much more functionality vista delivers" -- actually not that much more utility at all, in all truth. Yes, there's the Networking and Internet tools now that 3.1 didn't have. But in reality Vista is essentially much the same set of tools (especially true if you compare 3.11 rather than 3.1). Which only goes to further prove how horrifically bloated it is.

If you think Vista doesn't deliver vastly more functionality than Windows 3.1, I can only conclude you've never used either, or can't remember anything about Windows 3.1. Judging by the "especially true if you compare 3.11 rather than 3.1", I'm going to bet on the former.

Do you think OS X has "not much more utility" than Mac OS 7.5.x ?

Thirdly, forget the DOS price. Then, as now, most machines came bundled with MS products, the only reason to pay for 3.1 or vista is to upgrade from the previous version. (despite MS attempts to squeeze more cash out of everyone with 7 versions of vista) You didn't need to upgrade DOS as well as windows. So that's a non sequitur.

You can't "forget" it, it was impossible to run Windows 3.1 without DOS. This means you have to account for its cost. Since we're comparing the Retail version of Vista (not OEM), the only way to do that is with the retail price of DOS (which is likely closer to US$100 than US$50).

Fourthly, hardware and software has -- almost exclusively -- become cheaper over the past 20 years. This is true for OSX and its predecessors.

MacOS 9 had a retail price of $99.

This is NOT true for Windows.

It is most certainly true for Windows.

No, sorry. As I said the OP is correct.

No, you're both wrong. As I have demonstrated and which anyone can verify with a few "retail price" web searches and an inflation calculator.

Re:Expensive product?

[drsmithy]

Wiat wait, are you actually claiming that vista is more functional than Windows 3.1?

Wait, wait. Are you actually claiming that Windows 3.1 is more functional than Vista ? Could you list some examples ?

When your operating system somehow manages to reverse Rx Tx signals, there is a problem...

It can't.

Additionally, have you used a Mac?

Extensively. I own two of them.

OsX comes with a huge software set that at the very least, rivals the software set that comes with Microsoft Windows.
And as such the price should be comparable, but its not. as shown below, Mac OS-X pricing is far superior to vista pricing.

All retail copies of Mac OS X are priced as upgrades. Therefore, the only valid comparison to Vista is upgrade pricing. Using that, "Vista Home Premium" is both quite comparable, and more functional (eg: Media Centre).

Additionally take into Account that OS-X has a linux core at heart, and you prove that the Microsoft Windows Alternative is a joke.

Ah, as I suspected, you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Re:Expensive product?

[toddestan]

And why? For most people, Home Premium is going to do everything they need while still giving them all the glitzy Vista eye candy.

Re:Expensive product?

[drsmithy]

Now photoshop is probably good.. but FFS do they actually sell any at that price?

Sure. To a business using it to make money, that's a piddling sum (and a tax deduction).

Re:Expensive product?

[drsmithy]

OSX Tiger comes complete and should be compared to Ultimate NOT Home.

OS X has less features than Ultimate (or even Home Premium - no Media Centre, for example).

Re:Expensive product?

[yeremein]

US$200 in 1992, is worth about US$300 today. Looking at Microsoft's site, we see that Vista Home Premium ("Full Version") is US$239. Heck, even if you leave DOS out completely, US$150 inflates to US$225, only a hair cheaper.

But viewed as a percentage of the cost of the computer, Windows has easily tripled in price since the early '90s. You can almost build an entire PC for the cost of a Windows license these days. You may argue that Windows does a lot more than it used to, but the same is true of computer hardware.

Re:Expensive product?

[Anonymous Coward]

OS X has less features than Ultimate (or even Home Premium - no Media Centre, for example).

Gee, no media centre with my copy of Leopard? What will I use the remote control that came with my Macbook Pro (and comes free with every Mac except for the Macbook Air) for? Ah wait, maybe you're completely full of shit and I'll use it with Front Row.

Re:Expensive product?

[drsmithy]

But viewed as a percentage of the cost of the computer, Windows has easily tripled in price since the early '90s.

Firstly, that's not really true since buying Windows *with a computer* means an OEM copy, which is substantially cheaper than a "Full Retail" copy. Also, it's not particularly unusual for the OS "price" to be a larger proportion of the entire system:

Cheap Mac in 1993: US$1400
System 7.5 Retail Price: US$140
Percentage of system price: ~10%

Cheap Mac in 2008: US$600
Mac OS X 10.5: US$140
Percentage of system price: ~23%

(Had to use 1993 because I couldn't find MacOS pricing before 7.5.)

You can almost build an entire PC for the cost of a Windows license these days.

OEM Windows Vista Home Premium: US$110 (NewEgg)

What PC do you think you can build for US$110 ?

You may argue that Windows does a lot more than it used to, but the same is true of computer hardware.

Not really. Sure, processors are faster, hard disks are bigger, screens are higher resolution, and the like. But functional improvements are few and far between (ubiquitous builtin sound and networking are the only two that spring immediately to mind). In the realm of operating systems, however, *functional* improvements are extensive - pre-emptive multitasking, protected memory, symmetric processing, hardware abstraction layers, hardware and software emulation, networking stacks, GUI improvements, web browsers, web servers, remote control, email, media players, home movie authoring, home theatre. That's just off the top of my head (talking about more than just Windows here).

Even if it were true, "desktop" OSes would *easily* be worth "double or triple" the price they were in the early 90s, based on functionality improvements alone. Given they're actually cheaper now than they were then, they're an absolutely bargain. Anyone suggesting Windows is expensive, clearly doesn't actually *buy* much software, because in the context of functionality and amortised over its lifetime, its *cheap*. How much does the average PC game cost ? How long does it get used for ? Ever priced a copy of Photoshop or other piece of major commercial software ? Ever had to buy specialised software (eg: Radworks) that costs *thousands* of US$ per seat ?

Re:Expensive product?

[drsmithy]

Gee, no media centre with my copy of Leopard?

No.

What will I use the remote control that came with my Macbook Pro (and comes free with every Mac except for the Macbook Air) for? Ah wait, maybe you're completely full of shit and I'll use it with Front Row.

Front Row isn't Media Centre. In particular, it doesn't support TV viewing/recording.

Re:Expensive product?

[syousef]

Only on slashdot does a comment calling people stupid or liars if they don't agree with you get modded informative.

First of all Vista doesn't offer me a damned thing I want. The only new functionality I've used in Vista that I've wanted to use has been badly broken and almost cost me days in installation time. Complete PC backup and restore. The restore part deletes your partitions before validating if whether there is an error in the image. (I did finally find one improved piece of software with improvements artificially limited to Vista - ROBOCOPY).

Secondly Vista removes functionality that I do want. Have you had a look at the Vista sound recorder. (I own Vista Ultimate on a laptop - not my choice, Dell wasn't offering XP for that model). It cripples other functionality like audio loopback/ (most of the Vista sound drivers no longer include it. People might use it to pirate. Never mind that just hooking the audio out to audio in provides the same functionality). It's DRM has been reported to trigger incorrectly preventing hi-def playback....on and on it goes.

So for me at least Vista is a nice big step backwards.

Next lets examine your concepts of pricing.Here's the 4th link to Vista Ultimate via Google in my country.

http://www.jpcomputersolutions.com.au/vmchk/ulto1.html

AUD649 is US585. For a PC operating system! Get !@#$ed!!! I simply don't recall an operating system costing either of my parents over a week's wages when I was young.

Re:Expensive product?

[Koiu Lpoi]

In a vacuum, you might be right. Unless you compare it to, say, the total cost of the computer + os, or the cost of Mac OS X today, or any other things. But those factors would undermine your argument, so it's alright not to include them.

Re:Expensive product?

[GaryPatterson]

Of course it's 'refutable.' It installs without regard for any previous OS version, therefore it's a standalone OS install.

I can buy OS X 10.5 and install it on a machine that shipped with OS 9. No check is made for a previous version of OS X, or even a previous version of any Mac OS.

Want to install OS X on non-Apple hardware? Just get an EFI-based PC and go ahead. No checks, no upgrades. Yes, it's not within the licence but it again shows the nature of the non-upgrade OS X retail box.

OS X is not sold as an upgrade, and does not act as an upgrade. You need to show at least one of these to prove it's an upgrade OS.

Wishing don't make it so, drsmithy.

Re:Expensive product?

[GaryPatterson]

does every machine the license lets me install it on come with a previous version? YES!

Bzzt! Wrong, thanks for playing.

I don't need OS X on the machine to install it. I've installed it on an old Mac iBook that shipped with OS 9. No previous version required, thanks very much.

I'll repeat that because it knocks the support out from your upgrade point: You do not need a previous version of OS X installed to install any OS X on any Mac that is capable of running it.

Hell, I can also install it on any EFI-based computer with a blank hard drive, and don't need to make any funky kernel changes to do it. It installs right out of the box.

OS X retail copies are not sold as upgrades, and all the bad logic in the world won't make it so.

Re:Expensive product?

[arminw]

....no Media Centre, for example.......

Exactly what can Computer with VISTA Ultimate do that the standard OSX Leopard that comes with every new Mac or in every retail Leopard box? What does media centre do that the iLife programs that come with Macs cannot?

Re:Expensive product?

[drsmithy]

Exactly what can Computer with VISTA Ultimate do that the standard OSX Leopard that comes with every new Mac or in every retail Leopard box?

Media Centre.

What does media centre do that the iLife programs that come with Macs cannot?

Watch and record TV (and do the same from media extenders).

Re:Expensive product?

[drsmithy]

In a vacuum, you might be right. Unless you compare it to, say, the total cost of the computer + os, or the cost of Mac OS X today, or any other things. But those factors would undermine your argument, so it's alright not to include them.

Nope. The cost of the OS as a proportion to the entire computer irrelevant to this discussion. Further, given the massive functional improvements to OSes compared to hardware, one would expect it to make up a larger proportion of the overall cost today. Finally, comparing a Vista Home Premium Upgrade to OS X gives basically the same price, so you're wrong there as well.

Re:Expensive product?

[drsmithy]

Only on slashdot does a comment calling people stupid or liars if they don't agree with you get modded informative.

I'm not calling people stupid or liars because they disagree with me, I'm calling them stupid if they don't perform even basic research on a topic before making blanket assertions about it, or liars because they've done the research but chosen to lie about it.

I assume my post was modded informative because it had actual *information* in it, rather than rhetorical FUD.

AUD649 is US585. For a PC operating system! Get !@#$ed!!! I simply don't recall an operating system costing either of my parents over a week's wages when I was young.

How much attention were you paying ? How much were your parents earning in the early '90s ? How did you know how much they were spending on computer equipment ?

Stretching way back in my memory (yes, I'm Australian, yes I worked as a PC tech in the mid '90s), I seem to recall Windows 95 was around AU$300 for the "Full Retail" version and Windows 3.x + DOS was around AU$350.

From a very simplistic calculation, a take-home pay (I assume that's what you mean) of AU$600/wk today, works out to about AU$37k/yr. "Deflating", that's about AU$25k in 1993. AU$25k/yr in 1993 works out to around $380/wk in take-home pay. Now, that's a calculation with so many assumption in it that it's damn near useless, but it certainly shows that a "Full Retail" copy of Windows in the early '90s was potentially in the ballpark of a week's wages (I am not going to spend hours researching historical income statistics to resolve a tangential argument).

Further, Windows today is providing a *lot* more functionality than Windows did in the early '90s. It's easily worth more now than it was then, even in adjusted dollars. Windows is *not expensive* compared to the average piece of large commercial software (eg: Photoshop). Move into the realm of specialised software (eg: the company I work for pays ca. AU$10k *per seat* for Radworks) or server software (Oracle is ca. US$40k per CPU) and just how cheap Windows is (even at "Full Retail" - which hardly anyone actually pays) comes into perspective.

(As an aside, this is why OSS-advocate arguments about "how expensive" Windows is don't carry much weight amongst the people who actually pay the bills - because they know how cheap it is once the price is amortised over 3 years and tax deducted.)

Of course, it's just dumb to throw around the "Full Retail" price of Windows as if anything more than a tiny minority of consumers pay it, but that's something else which seems to escape a lot of people (presumably because it's the only way to make Windows look even remotely expensive)...

Re:Expensive product?

[msormune]

Windows 3.1 was $130... in 1990. This is 2008. The adjusted price for 2007 would be pretty close to $300 USD.

Re:Expensive product?

[syousef]

I'm not calling people stupid or liars because they disagree with me, I'm calling them stupid if they don't perform even basic research on a topic before making blanket assertions about it, or liars because they've done the research but chosen to lie about it.

Horse shit.

I assume my post was modded informative because it had actual *information* in it, rather than rhetorical FUD.

You assume wrong. I've seen utter garbage - from racist and religious rants to unscientific crap that would embarass a school kid with education worth a damn - modded informative and insightful. Slashdot has gone down further and further over the last couple of years.

How much attention were you paying ? How much were your parents earning in the early '90s ? How did you know how much they were spending on computer equipment ?

Could you be more patronizing or insulting if you tried? I knew exactly what our budget breakdown was growing up thanks, from about the age of 10 or 12.

Now, that's a calculation with so many assumption in it that it's damn near useless, but it certainly shows that a "Full Retail" copy of Windows in the early '90s was potentially in the ballpark

You make a back of the envelope calculation you admit is useless, and then say it follows that you've proven your point????? MORON.

Further, Windows today is providing a *lot* more functionality than Windows did in the early '90s.

Vista has actually cut out a LOT of useful functionality, and replaced it with half arsed crap that doesn't work (like a backup that's worse than useless because the joke's on you if you bother to use it) and a bunch of glitz. I can't fucking BELIEVE they've crippled simple stuff like the sound recorder! Go ahead compare that goddamn accessory with the XP version or even the win 3.1 version!!!! and tell me that little feature of Vista is improved.

Windows is *not expensive* compared to the average piece of large commercial software (eg: Photoshop). ...and a Rolls Royce isn't expensive compared to a Space Shuttle. How many people average Jo users do you know that own legit versions of Photoshop - which by the way is a specialized piece of editing software that's got features most people would find difficult to use.

Of course, it's just dumb to throw around the "Full Retail" price of Windows as if anything more than a tiny minority of consumers pay it,

Oh you know some other way of getting it that doesn't involve buying a whole new machine?

As an aside, this is why OSS-advocate arguments about "how expensive" Windows is don't carry much weight amongst the people who actually pay the bills - because they know how cheap it is once the price is amortised over 3 years and tax deducted

Tax deducted? Buddy do you know how a tax deducation works? You get the full price taken off your taxable income. The maximum portion you're paying of that in Aus is less than 50%. So you write off $600 Windows and the most you'll get back is under $300.

Regardless, downloading and installing an alternative piece of free software is $0. I'm certainly not going to tell someone struggling to make ends meet to part with $300-$600 on top of whatever they spend on hardware because hey it's cheap tax "amortised over 3 years and tax deducted". You come across sounding like a spoilt rich arsehole.

Of course, it's just dumb to throw around the "Full Retail" price of Windows as if anything more than a tiny minority of consumers pay it, but that's something else which seems to escape a lot of people (presumably because it's the only way to make Windows look even remotely expensive)...

Oh yeah you think Windows is just about free or costs next to nothing because your itemized bill shows $200 for the OS, but only when bundled with hardware. I've got news for you. It costs near full price. It's the hardware that's cheaper. Why do you think OEMs like Dell charge large more for items you can buy at your local PC shop when their buying power is probably 1000x greater? You're dumb as a brick if you think your Windows OS is cheap.

Re:Expensive product?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to burst your bubble, but Premium isn't the "Full Version", Ultimate is. So raise your retail price a bit. Retail $319. BTW, as your other post goes on about purchasing OEM. remember, OEM license ONLY allows one-install and is hard tied to hardware, where retail is not. So, an enthusiast building a machine would probably want to avoid it like the plague. Of course, I don't expect you to actually know what you are talking about, this is slashdot afterall.

Re:Expensive product?

[drsmithy]

Horse shit.

What else do you propose I call people who either knowingly make assertions out of ignorance, or lie, then ?

Could you be more patronizing or insulting if you tried? I knew exactly what our budget breakdown was growing up thanks, from about the age of 10 or 12.

Sure. I could point out how unlikely it was that a 10-12 year old knew the details of his parents finances, no matter how smart he thought he was back then. Especially since you haven't indicated how much they each earning back in the early '90s. What proportion of the household income went on food ? Taxes ? Mortage/rent ? Transport ?

You make a back of the envelope calculation you admit is useless, and then say it follows that you've proven your point????? MORON.

No, I never said it proved my point, I said it provided support for my argument. Which is a hell of lot more than you, or any poster to this thread, has attempted to do, with their "arguments" that mostly boil down to "lalalalalala I'm right and your're wrong lalalalalala".

Vista has actually cut out a LOT of useful functionality, and replaced it with half arsed crap that doesn't work (like a backup that's worse than useless because the joke's on you if you bother to use it) and a bunch of glitz. I can't fucking BELIEVE they've crippled simple stuff like the sound recorder! Go ahead compare that goddamn accessory with the XP version or even the win 3.1 version!!!! and tell me that little feature of Vista is improved.

It's "cut a lot of useful functionality", but the best you can come up with is a problem that was most likely user related and the sound recorder ?

What about all the functionality it's added since ~1992 ? Pre-emptive multitasking, protected memory, symmetric processing, hardware abstraction layers, networking stacks, web browsers, remote control, email clients, media players, home movie authoring, home theatre, etc. All that, yet in adjusted dollars you're paying less now than you were in ~1992.

...and a Rolls Royce isn't expensive compared to a Space Shuttle. How many people average Jo users do you know that own legit versions of Photoshop - which by the way is a specialized piece of editing software that's got features most people would find difficult to use.

I know more people with legit copies of software like Photoshop than I do who bought the "Full Retail" version of Windows (any version, ever) - and that's without even considering actual businesses I've worked for and with.

Oh you know some other way of getting it that doesn't involve buying a whole new machine?

If you have a PC that came with some version of Windows (most people), buy an upgrade version. The percentage of people who have PCs that didn't come with some version of Windows, would struggle to hit whole-number percentages.

Tax deducted? Buddy do you know how a tax deducation works? You get the full price taken off your taxable income. The maximum portion you're paying of that in Aus is less than 50%. So you write off $600 Windows and the most you'll get back is under $300.

Don't forget GST. Now take that (unrealistic, but whatever) $300 and spread it across 3-5 years (let's say 4) of use. There are about 900 working days over 4 years, so the per-day cost for that "expensive" copy of Vista (that they wouldn't have bought anyway) to a business is about $0.33.

Regardless, downloading and installing an alternative piece of free software is $0.

And that's about all it's worth if it doesn't meet your needs.

I'm certainly not going to tell someone struggling to make ends meet to part with $300-$600 on top of whatever they spend on hardware because hey it's cheap tax "amortised over 3 years and tax deducted". You come across sounding like a spoilt rich arsehole.

To a business, it *is* cheap (especially, as I keep trying to point out, in the context of other pieces of major commercial softw

Re:Expensive product?

[mpe]

Firstly, that's not really true since buying Windows *with a computer* means an OEM copy, which is substantially cheaper than a "Full Retail" copy.

How much actual difference is there between an "OEM" and a "Full Retail" copy? Certainly the price difference cannot account for a cardboard box and a plastic disk.
That's before you even consider that a German court ruled that nothing prevented retail sales of "OEM Software".

Re:Expensive product?

[Koiu Lpoi]

irrelevant to this discussion.

Really? Irrelevant? I didn't know that. I thought it made all the difference. But I'll play by your rules for a moment.

given the massive functional improvements to OSes compared to hardware

Your own figures 'showed' that Vista and 3.1 are the "same cost" essentially. But apparently there's been no improvements to hardware, nothing like 386->core 2 duo, no no. We're using the same hardware essentially, and it certainly isn't any cheaper by comparison.

Finally, comparing a Vista Home Premium Upgrade to OS X gives basically the same price

Amazon has Vista Upgrade for ~$200, whereas the Apple Store has Leopard for $130, unless you're smart and get the 4 serial family pack, which is $40 per license. Not basically the same cost. At all.

Re:Expensive product?

[arminw]

....Watch and record TV.....

Doesn't that assume that the PC has some sort of special hardware that tunes the TV channels? How many installed PCs have that? How many NEW PCs come stock with TV receiving capability? There are a number of hardware devices for the Mac that allow this as well.

I have recorded TV on occasions since about five years ago, using my Digital Camcorder as an interface between my Mac Powerbook running iMovie and our Satellite receiver. I can easily edit out the commercials and then use iDVD to preserve the finished show. Much more important, can I plug my camcorder into the computer and edit my own footage and make an at least semi-not-boring presentation for friends and family?

I don't watch that much TV anyway, since it is still the largely commercial infested programmatic wasteland it has always been. A good Netflix rental inserted into the Powerbook, connected to a not terribly expensive projector lighting up a 60 inch screen and the sound of the stereo system, together with some fresh popped popcorn, makes for an enjoyable movie night for family and friends.

For the Jeopardy and other programs my wife enjoys, as well as the evening news, an old $200 TV is plenty good enough.

Re:Expensive product?

[syousef]

Sure. I could point out how unlikely it was that a 10-12 year old knew the details of his parents finances, no matter how smart he thought he was back then.

I'm going to stop you right there. You know nothing about me or my family, yet you insist that a 12 year old couldn't know his parent's finances. Not all families work like yours. My family was particularly dysfunctional but I'm not lying about this one. Your inability to believe this and your willingness to call people liar clearly mark you as a narrow minded zealot with an agenda. I'd have more luck having a sane and rational argument with a brick so instead of raising my blood pressure and bothering to counter each of your inane and childish rants I'm going to laugh at your ass and leave your delusions unchallenged. Have a lovely day in your little fantasy land where commercial operating systems cost next to nothing. You're not worth my time.

Re:Expensive product?

[drsmithy]

How much actual difference is there between an "OEM" and a "Full Retail" copy? Certainly the price difference cannot account for a cardboard box and a plastic disk.

An OEM copy is only licensed to be used with the hardware it is sold with (how legally enforceable that is, is another matter).

That's before you even consider that a German court ruled that nothing prevented retail sales of "OEM Software".

I'm not entirely sure what your point is ? For starters, I'm not voicing any opinions whatsoever on the OEM vs retail product differentiation. Further, what may hold true in one German court most certainly cannot be assumed to hold true in all courts (even within Germany, unless it was their highest Court).

Re:Expensive product?

[drsmithy]

For the Jeopardy and other programs my wife enjoys, as well as the evening news, an old $200 TV is plenty good enough.

Well, that's great, but it doesn't change the fact that Vista has a fairly significant piece of functionality - which many people believe is worth purchasing a copy for on its own (there's a lot of people out there with XP of Vista media centres) - that OS X lacks.

Re:Expensive product?

[drsmithy]

Really? Irrelevant? I didn't know that. I thought it made all the difference. But I'll play by your rules for a moment.

Yes, irrelevant. Because this discussion is about OS prices as a discrete item, not a proportion of an overall cost.

Your own figures 'showed' that Vista and 3.1 are the "same cost" essentially. But apparently there's been no improvements to hardware, nothing like 386->core 2 duo, no no. We're using the same hardware essentially, and it certainly isn't any cheaper by comparison.

Firstly, my figures showed that DOS+Windows 3.1 (the only remotely rational comparison to Vista from that timeframe) cost about 30% more in adjusted dollars. Secondly, I never said anything of the sort about "using the same hardware", I merely pointed out there haven't been many functional improvements in computers. You appear to be lying in an attempt to divert attention away from your complete lack of actual argument.

Amazon has Vista Upgrade for ~$200, whereas the Apple Store has Leopard for $130, unless you're smart and get the 4 serial family pack, which is $40 per license. Not basically the same cost. At all.

Home Premium is more than equivalent to OS X and Amazon lists it at US$95. Sorry, you're wrong again. The family pack is, of course, only useful if you actually have a family full of Macs (in which case, yes, OS X is cheaper - congratulations, you "won" an argument I never made).

Re:Expensive product?

[drsmithy]

I'm going to stop you right there. You know nothing about me or my family, yet you insist that a 12 year old couldn't know his parent's finances.

Apparently you have great difficulties comprehending that the world is not black and white. I "insisted" nothing. I pointed out that it was extremely *unlikely* that someone not even into their teens would have a comprehensive understanding of their family's financial affairs.

Not all families work like yours. My family was particularly dysfunctional but I'm not lying about this one. Your inability to believe this and your willingness to call people liar clearly mark you as a narrow minded zealot with an agenda.

I haven't called anyone a liar who wasn't lying. My scepticism is founded in a) experience (most *adults* don't have a good handle on their own finances) and b) your reticence to offer any further clarification on the topic.

I'd have more luck having a sane and rational argument with a brick so instead of raising my blood pressure and bothering to counter each of your inane and childish rants I'm going to laugh at your ass and leave your delusions unchallenged. Have a lovely day in your little fantasy land where commercial operating systems cost next to nothing. You're not worth my time.

Careful. Waving around hypocrisy like that could take someone's eye out.

Re:Expensive product?

[drsmithy]

Of course it's 'refutable.' It installs without regard for any previous OS version, therefore it's a standalone OS install.

This is not relevant to how it is priced.

I can buy OS X 10.5 and install it on a machine that shipped with OS 9. No check is made for a previous version of OS X, or even a previous version of any Mac OS.

Nor does one need to exist, since you can't have a Mac without having previously paid for a MacOS license. When a hardware dongle exists, that's all the "proof" required.

Want to install OS X on non-Apple hardware? Just get an EFI-based PC and go ahead. No checks, no upgrades. Yes, it's not within the licence but it again shows the nature of the non-upgrade OS X retail box.

If you want to step outside the bounds of the EULA, then it's only fair to do the same with Vista, no ? In which case you can do exactly the same thing with an "upgrade" version of Vista.

OS X is not sold as an upgrade, and does not act as an upgrade. You need to show at least one of these to prove it's an upgrade OS.

It is most certainly sold as an upgrade, as demonstrated by Apple explicitly disallowing you from using it on any machine that doesn't already have a MacOS license.

Wishing don't make it so, drsmithy.

Good advice, you should follow it. No matter how much you wish, you cannot change the irrefutable fact that Apple still only license retail versions of MacOS X on machines that already have MacOS licenses. Hence, it is sold (and priced) as an upgrade.

Re:Expensive product?

[syousef]

I pointed out that it was extremely *unlikely* that someone not even into their teens would have a comprehensive understanding of their family's financial affairs.

Do you have ANY point AT ALL other than to troll?

You accuse me of seeing the world as black and white yet YOU are the one that insists a kid couldn't know their parents finances.

Well I did know my family's finances. I knew what my parents earnt. I knew what they spent on groceries. I knew how much our monthly mortgage payments were. From time to time I'd ask what we had still owing and they'd tell me. My parents fought about finances (amongst other things) so often it wasn't funny. Sometimes it got physical. Sometimes I'd be woken up by my father hurling abuse at me. That some arrogant piece of shit troll insists that what I lived was unlikely and calls me a liar makes me laugh. Buddy until you've walked in my shoes, your pathetic whining is nothing but an insult.

My scepticism is founded in a) experience (most *adults* don't have a good handle on their own finances) and b) your reticence to offer any further clarification on the topic.

You're fucking limited experience of a middle class suburban household that your limited experience offers you is of no interest to me. How you think people ought to behave is neither here nor there. Talk to me when you've been woken by your father holding a knife to your mother's throat.

Is that enough clarification for you asshole?

Call me a liar, indeed. You're a piece of shit troll. Go fuck yourself.

Re:Expensive product?

[GaryPatterson]

You're changing your argument now.

You said "Of course it doesn't "check for previous media". It doesn't *need* to. By virtue of the fact you're installing it onto a Mac, you've already paid for an OS X license."

Now you're saying "No matter how much you wish, you cannot change the irrefutable fact that Apple still only license retail versions of MacOS X on machines that already have MacOS licenses. Hence, it is sold (and priced) as an upgrade."

What happened to the "already paid for an OS X licence" part? Now it's just any previous MacOS licence. OS 9 and OS X are two very different pieces of software, analogous to Win95 and Vista.

If I don't need a previous piece of software, then purchasing a later version of that software must be purchasing a full install, not just an upgrade. I don't need a previous version of OS X to install it (legally, under the EULA, etc), so the OS X box I buy at retail is a full install and not an upgrade.

You may believe that it's priced as an upgrade, but in the absence of another version that's just a guess. It's certainly priced in line with previous OS releases from Apple (I'm thinking System 6, System 7, MacOS 8, MacOS 9 here), but those could be upgrades under either of our arguments.

I see your point about the hardware dongle, and really it's the best point you've made so far. I'm looking at this from the software point of view, and you're now talking about hardware and software. I suspect we're coming at this from different angles and probably won't agree. I refute your irrefutable point though!

Re:Expensive product?

[drsmithy]

You're changing your argument now.

No, my argument remains the same. OS X is priced as an upgrade. You are trying to argue semantics.

What happened to the "already paid for an OS X licence" part? Now it's just any previous MacOS licence. OS 9 and OS X are two very different pieces of software, analogous to Win95 and Vista.

If you look at other posts, you should find that I use "MacOS", "MacOS X", "OS X", etc interchangably in that context. Apple also consider them part of the same product family - remember, that 'X' stands for 'version 10'.

MacOS "Classic" and MacOS X are certainly very different pieces of software from a technical perspective. However, we're not talking about a technical perspective, we're talking about a pricing structure.

If I don't need a previous piece of software, then purchasing a later version of that software must be purchasing a full install, not just an upgrade. I don't need a previous version of OS X to install it (legally, under the EULA, etc), so the OS X box I buy at retail is a full install and not an upgrade.

You do need a previous version of MacOS, by virtue of needing a Mac. That the installer does not needlessly check for a previous version, does not change this.

You may believe that it's priced as an upgrade, but in the absence of another version that's just a guess.

You may believe that it's not priced as an upgrade, but in the absence of another version, that's just a guess.

It's certainly priced in line with previous OS releases from Apple (I'm thinking System 6, System 7, MacOS 8, MacOS 9 here), but those could be upgrades under either of our arguments.

System 6 wasn't available at retail IIRC, System 7.x was the first (and at around $140, substantially more expensive than OS X today). MacOS 8 and 9 were (again, IIRC) $99.

I see your point about the hardware dongle, and really it's the best point you've made so far. I'm looking at this from the software point of view, and you're now talking about hardware and software.

Apple don't sell Macs without MacOS and they don't licenses OS X for use on anything except Macs. In the context of pricing, you can't separate the two.

I'm looking at this from the software point of view, and you're now talking about hardware and software. I suspect we're coming at this from different angles and probably won't agree.

Here's the difference between our positions. I am largely arguing that Apple prices OS X as an upgrade because their EULA precludes running it on a machine that doesn't have an existing MacOS license. Further evidence to support my position is similar pricing to contemporaries (Windows), the inability to purchase Apple hardware sans OS (ie: you cannot satisfy the EULA without having a previous MacOS license), the difficulty of installing OS X onto non-Apple hardware (apart from the latest version onto a small subset of PCs) and the complete lack of support from Apple if you manage to do so. Your sole counterargument is that the installer doesn't carry out a check for an existing copy - a check that isn't necessary anyway, because owning a Mac == owning a previous copy of MacOS.

To emphasise the point again, "checking for a previous version" is not a valid benchmark. Microsoft do this because it's trivial to buy a PC without Windows (and always has been). Apple do not because it's never, ever been possible to buy a Mac without MacOS and only quite recently become feasible to install it at all on non-Apple hardware. Apple is not being any less restrictive than Microsoft (arguably, more so), they're just using different methodologies.

Re:Expensive product?

[GaryPatterson]

Curses! I hate it when people argue their point better than I do.

I see your point and you've reduced my point to a semantic thing, not worth debating. I have to yield.

OS X is priced as an upgrade. The installer on retail discs doesn't act as an upgrade but the pricing is consistent with an upgrade.

Is nagging patentable?

[edwardpickman]

I can't wait for that patent filing. Microsoft's new NAG security system.

What about activation?

[zlogic]

WGA made sense in XP when there was a corporate license key that worked without activation. But all Vista keys need activation in some way, either a corporate KMS activation key (which is possible to be recalled), an ordinary key, or an OEM certificate+corresponding SLIC in the BIOS+serial number (which is installed on hundreds of thousands consumer PCs and a key recall is practically impossible).
The only way WGA can be triggered is either the KMS key or some hacking scheme of activating one computer with an ordinary key and then activating another one with a simular configuration with the same key.
Most cracked Vista copies use the BIOS method which impossible to detect, especially if there's no driver installed and the SLIC is actually patched into the real BIOS.

Shareware / Piracy

[milsoRgen]

Sounds to me like Microsoft is worried about the uptake of Vista and is reverting to a more piracy friendly stance. Because let's not kid our selves, it was the piracy of 9x-2000, XP that really helped increase it's user base and then maintain that base. Now it's been gambling with shutting down that (back)avenue of adoption which probably would of worked if Vista would have been seen as a more worthwhile upgrade.

It reminds me of the more shareware friendly days of yore.

My default desktop background is black

[thalassinos]

So "... annoyances such as repeatedly changing the desktop background to black" do not affect me.

Take that Vista!

Re:My default desktop background is black

[Bonobo_Unknown]

... it goes with my black skivvy

Let me ask you something

[Anonymous Coward]

Either my phone (a blackberry) or one of the smart cards in my wallet will very often set off those alarms entering and leaving stores. I ignore it, but often the clerks freak out. I never even stop at the sound anymore, and it upsets some of the shopkeepers. You can see them scramble after me as I walk down the street or mall. I only had one merchant press the issue with me, I told them they have faulty theft alarms and continued on. I don't have time for nonsense like that, and I won't be treated like a thief by anyone.

Do those alarms even do anything? I mean, if I'm a thief, I would just ignore them anyway. And since I'm not a thief.... I just ignore them anyway. Is their value in deterrence? Their for the nervous shoplifter who screams "I'm guilty" when they hear the beep?

Windows is a pig in a poke

[dpbsmith]

I've had this argument with so many managerial types over so many years...

The big problem with Windows is not whether it's good or whether it's bad, it's that it's a pig in a poke. There are no stable specifications for what Windows is or isn't, and what's in Windows and what isn't. People make business decisions on things like the "fact" that Windows "comes with Toolbook" (yes, no kidding). It comes with Toolbook for as long as Microsoft thinks it should, then it doesn't. You can repeat this ad nauseam for any important characteristic of Windows, without even getting into questions of what kinds of DRM are actually enforced to what degree.

There is no specification for Windows. As a simple technical matter we have even had problems determining which DLLs and OCXes are "part of" Windows: there does not seem to be a standard list of what a full directory listing of a "standard" Windows installation is supposed to look like. The same Windows CD will install slightly different sets of files on different PCs.

This is equally true of the Mac OS. It comes with HyperCard, until it doesn't. The characteristics of what QuickTime will and won't do, how many Macs can be "authorized" under iTunes changes, etc.

This is not necessarily a characteristic of proprietary software in general. I grew up in an environment where the word "specifications" meant a document that was written by a buyer, often the government or the military, but in any case an entity with the clout to say "we are interesting in buying something that does X, Y, and Z." And software vendors would either pass up the business, which they could not afford to do, or supply a known product that met known specifications. The FORTRAN compiler darn well better meet the FORTRAN spec...

I've tried to get people that make business decisions to understand that if they go with Microsoft, they cannot make their judgement not solely on the basis of what Microsoft is delivering today: they are committing their company's future to their guesses about what Microsoft will be doing in the future.

As long as the people who make purchasing decisions about Windows don't care about having a real set of specs and holding Microsoft to them, Windows will continue to be a pig in a poke.

Re:Windows is a pig in a poke

[GaryPatterson]

That's an interesting thought, but I've never seen a spec doc for any OS, or any off-the-shelf application.

For custom apps, definitely - write the spec, get the resources, kick off the project. But for off-the-shelf stuff?

Now I think about it - do any OS vendors release a road map that goes beyond the next release? I know there are sometimes wish-lists, and Linux would no doubt have a bunch of work lists, but what about road-maps of features to be implemented?

Firefox comparison?

[xoundmind]

Does it nag more than NoScript?

Re:Firefox comparison?

[Koiu Lpoi]

It's only comparable if NoScript really came up with boxes telling you not to go to torrent websites.

Why not take out WGA?

[Doug52392]

Most people hate Vista and would never buy it, let alone illegally download it...

Excuse me, but...

[qazwart]

Isn't Windows licensed on almost every PC sold before I even get it out of the factory door? I was under the impression that most OEMs have a licensing agreement with Microsoft that pretty much puts a Windows license on every computer sold -- whether or not it actually has Windows on it.

So, why all the hoopla about WGA? Is Microsoft so worried about a few people who are upgrading from XP to Vista? In a few years, these people will be buying a new computer and will end up with a new Vista license anyway. This was the same company a decade ago worried about Windows penetration into the Chinese market because not enough people were pirating their software in China!

It sounds like for the few pennies that Microsoft might be losing to unlicensed copies of Windows Vista, they're busy making legitimate user lives miserable.

Re:Excuse me, but...

[petermgreen]

Isn't Windows licensed on almost every PC sold before I even get it out of the factory door?
Almost every big brand PC sold yes though even that is decreasing after MS got in trouble for some of those agreements that you mentioned.

Whitebox vendors though are generally under no such agreement with MS and they probablly pay more per copy of windows. Whitebox vendors are often quite happy to sell PCs blank or even PCs with pirate copies of windows (this is especially true in poorer countries).

Much as I hate WGA, making it nasty enough to punish whitebox vendors who pirate was probablly a good move. But MS went far far beyond that.

Re:Excuse me, but...

[ArcCoyote]

Exactly, and on an OEM SLP install, WGA is only used to
a) verify the OS is running on (mostly) original hardware. This stops drive cloning.
b) validate your license to download stuff from Microsoft. Annoying, but whatever. Those downloads are covered under the windows license, and that's MS's decision.

Most of the WPA/WGA stuff is to make sure retail and upgrade copies are genuine, and I can see where that would be a concern for MS. You stop the shadier businesses from selling pirated upgrades, or deploying a SINGLE license across a whole enterprise. That was a huge problem before WGA. And yeah, I've worked for places like that: if they are ripping off MS, you know they are ripping off customers too.

Buying a license for software is NOT like buying a shirt with a antitheft tag on it. The store can remove the tag because you can't give your friend a copy of the shirt.

Mine already does this...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have Vista Ultimate, and my desktop already switches to black. Its irritating as all hell. Every single time I reboot (which is a shitload, thanks a lot Vista), it removes my wallpaper. Its a legit copy and passes the WGA though, this is just a Vista bug as far as I can tell. I'm so glad others will soon share in my joy.

Fire-and-forget

[westlake]

I'm asking purely out of curiosity, of course... But how many times do you think that the average user of Windows XP or Vista sees an activation prompt after he first boots up the system?

Re:Fire-and-forget

[Koiu Lpoi]

How many times do you think a US citizen saw the inside of a Japanese internment camp in WWII?

I know my example is to the extreme, but please think about it.

One word to describe fucktards like you

[Anonymous Coward]

Baaaa.

DOS+Windows bundling; inflation; more features

[tepples]

Windows 3.1 was $130 and commonly discounted to $80. That was for the whole OS, not split up so you have 4 different versions. The top price was $80. The cost was low because Microsoft had competition. drsmithy pointed out how you might have forgotten to take into account inflation, larger feature sets, and the bundling of MS-DOS into the Windows 95 and Windows 98 SKUs.

But for MS Windows, the cost doubled or tripled. All because consumers refuse to use alternatives. Citation needed. Plenty of home users and graphic designers use Apple computers, which do not come with any version of Windows. Businesses, on the other hand, need to run vertical-market software that isn't tested on Wine. In the case of my employer, if I drop Microsoft software, I have to drop Stone Edge Order Manager, which runs on top of Access. Which package should an online retailer use instead of that one?

I don't agree

[ludomancer]

I don't want it to phone-home even once! If I buy their stupid OS, I buy it. If I choose to download it, I choose to download it, and WGA or any phoning-home isn't really going to prevent that from happening. I don't consider software that "checks up" on my purchases to deserve my money. In the end, even that one phone-home is just adding you to a database with associated serial number so they can cataloged all their users, and I don't care for that behavior in the least, anonymous or not.

To carry the previous retail store analogy along with this, its like buying a shirt and having the store call you at home to confirm you didn't give your shirt to anyone else on the way, and if you did they need to know the new owners name and address.

Re:I don't agree

[Anonymous Coward]

You sir, are a paranoid wanker. The type who pirates software and expects it to just work. Get over it.

Vista Sucks

[thomasw_lrd]

I've been using vista since I got my new computer in September of last year. I don't really like it, but I've never had any issues with wga. My wife's laptop is the same. I also never have to worry about pop up ads. I'm not a fan of Microsoft, I really dislike them. But I also don't have the time or money to pay for vmware and try to get it work properly. People need to just leave microsoft alone. If you don't like the, build you're own computer. If you do, then buy a nice cheap wal-mart special and use it to you're hearts content. Let's face it, we're all geeks and nerds on here anyways, lets just stick together.

Re:Vista Sucks

[LurkerXXX]

You don't have the money for VMWare?

VMWare server is free.

Re:Vista Sucks

[thomasw_lrd]

where at? The cheapest I could find was 99 usd for my a student license.

Re:Vista Sucks

[LurkerXXX]

ummm, www.vmware.com

How to update to SP1

[DiSKiLLeR]

To update to SP1, get the following download: http://staff.neowin.net/skyypunk/VistaSP1WU.zip

It simply enabled SP1 to appear in Windows Update, exactly how the Release Candidates were enabled.

Specifically, the code is:

reg delete HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\WindowsUpdate\VistaSp1 /f > NUL 2>&1
reg delete HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Wow6432Node\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\WindowsUpdate\VistaSP1 /f > NUL 2>&1

reg add HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\WindowsUpdate\VistaSp1 /v Beta1 /t REG_SZ /d dcf99ef8-d784-414e-b411-81a910d2761d /f

black or blue ???

[wwwillem]

repeatedly changing the desktop background to black

Are you sure it is black, and not blue ..... :-)

Excellent troll!

[Anonymous Coward]

I praise your troll.

I love the way everything on a modern computer is cheaper than it used to be (mostly because the market sizes are so much larger that less per-unit profit is required) but you want the operating system to follow different rules than basically *everything* else in the computer world.

But no... Windows is supposed to magically be more expensive, despite all this.

*awesome* troll.

(That said, if you weren't trolling, you really are a waste of life)

Re:Excellent troll!

[drsmithy]

I love the way everything on a modern computer is cheaper than it used to be (mostly because the market sizes are so much larger that less per-unit profit is required) but you want the operating system to follow different rules than basically *everything* else in the computer world.

Mac OS 9: $99

Mac OS X: $139

No, they don't include more functionality...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Take into account the additional functionality (media player, movie maker, networking, web browser, media centre, etc) and it's massively cheaper. It's certainly not within a bull's roar of having "doubled or tripled"."

But the price has tripled, and the only reason, the ONLY reason that microsoft throws in all those things you think are extra is because the competition (such that it is) includes it.

OS X includes it.

Every version of Linux includes it

But look at how short that list of alternatives are.

OS X is $199 for a 5 user license. And has more functionality than Vista Ultimate. So tell me again how that $400 for Vista Ultimate represents a bargain. That's the same kind of fuzzy math that keeps most people locked into Windows. They make stuff up simply because they don't know any better.

I have a feeling you do know better but choose to ignore the massively high prices that forces Vista to be more expensive than the computer it comes on. What a joke.

Re:No, they don't include more functionality...

[drsmithy]

But the price has tripled, [...]

The price has not tripled. As I demonstrated.

[...] and the only reason, the ONLY reason that microsoft throws in all those things you think are extra is because the competition (such that it is) includes it.

So you're saying the system is working exactly how it's supposed to and we're all getting more stuff, cheaper ? Why is this a problem ?

OS X is $199 for a 5 user license. And has more functionality than Vista Ultimate.

No, it doesn't have more functionality that Vista Ultimate. Hell, it doesn't even have more functionality than "Home Premium" (no Media Centre equivalent, for example).

So tell me again how that $400 for Vista Ultimate represents a bargain. That's the same kind of fuzzy math that keeps most people locked into Windows. They make stuff up simply because they don't know any better.

The math isn't in the slightest bit "fuzzy". It's clear, it's simple and it's repeatable by anyone with a web browser and a basic knowledge of operating systems. Vista (even the most basic version) does (vastly) more than Windows 3.1 did. Further, accounting for inflation, it costs less. Where's the "fuzziness" ?

I have a feeling you do know better but choose to ignore the massively high prices that forces Vista to be more expensive than the computer it comes on. What a joke.

Vista is not more expensive than the computer it comes on. If it comes on a computer it's an OEM version, not a Retail version, and probably "cost" less than US$50.

Re:No, they don't include more functionality...

[JonJ]

No, it doesn't have more functionality that Vista Ultimate. Hell, it doesn't even have more functionality than "Home Premium" (no Media Centre equivalent, for example).
Fine, you make home premium log on to a domain then.

WGA is about profits, not low prices

[tkrotchko]

"I personally think that if WGA can keep the already high price of windows down then there's nothing wrong with it."

WGA has nothing to do with keeping the cost of windows down. It has everything to do with maximizing profits.

Now, let me say, there is nothing wrong with that. Companies should be able to charge anything they want for a product, and if people want to pay it (even foolishly), I think that's fine.

But piracy has nothing to do with the cost of Windows; the cost of Windows has to do primarily with how much the OEM's will pay for it. Therefore WGA is not keeping your price low. It's just a PITA to make sure a few more million bucks profit goes to MS each quarter.

It is indeed funny that people put up with it, particularly people who bought it in good faith expecting a better experience than software pirates.

Nice feature

[JumperCable]

I typically set my background to black anyway.

Black decktop is the first change I always make

[Overzeetop]

Why would I want anything else - I like a clean desktop, and some goofy background image is just distraction. Of course, I also set everthing to display windows classic. The only change I make is that I prefer the old "brick" color scheme to the blue one, so I go with that instead. Yes, I still miss NT3.51.

I haven't updated since WGA

[bh_doc]

I haven't done a Windows Update on my (legal) XP partition since WGA started insisting it install itself and look over my shoulder. I also won't boot into that partition while any ethernet cable is attached. I'm probably still vulnerable somehow.

I originally kept a Windows partition around just for games, but I've found myself playing only few of them these days. And with Wine ever improving for the Windows games I do play, I'm seriously pondering nuking that partition, and getting that 50GB of my disk back for more important things.

Crippleware

[nephridium]

So basically WGA under SP1 causes Vista to act like crippleware.

The irony of course being that Vista was already "crippleware" from the beginning - crippleware by design, if you may ;).

Another view on why WGA is hated...

[bornagainpenguin]

I wrote this for a different forum I frequent when the discussion turned on this issue, I think it says exactly what I feel when it comes to WGA as clearly as possible, so I repeat it here:

I agree about the guilty until proven innocent mentality, but I am a bit confused about the having "to jump through countless hoops" to get the updates...

I mean things like having to download and run a new WGA verifier every month or so, and then when installing something like IE7 or the latest WMP, having to rerun validation all over again.

I mean how many times do we have to confirm these days?

1) WPA: After installing for the first time you must do Windows Product Activation. ...okay.... No problem now that I've got an internet connection right? WRONG!

• a)Start WPA, connect to internet, wait as the #### thing fails due to activating too many times...

  b)Call up Microsoft, speak liiiikkkkeeee thhhhiiiiissss for the machine, so it can understand me and submit the information I'd already sent via internet AGAIN.

  c)Wait for available customer service representative, give her the same information I'd just submitted twice now, yet a third time...

  d)Confirm to skeptical CSR that YES I bought my own copy of XP, NO I haven't been installing it on every PC in the neighborhood, YES I am installing it on the same machine, NO I would not like a slurpy, YES I agree the portrayal of "Apu" on the Simpsons(TM) is an insult to Indians everywhere...wait wut?? Could I please just have my damn Windows activation code already???

  e)read off the NEW activation code I'm given by the CSR, making this the fourth time I've played the read the numbers game...

2)Windows is activated! Huzzah! Now for the updates...

• a)What's this...WGA needs to be installed? Didn't I just go through this for WPA?? Whatever...

  b)It needs to restart, okay, do the restart and go to the Windows Update site again, now I have something close to 100mbs of updates to install, grab them all... This looks like it'll take awhile, I'll goi have a cup of coffee while I wait...

  c)What's this?? IE7* needs to check the WGA again???

  d)Restart the system after it finishes auto installing IE7 hidden updates...

3) Oh wait, I need to update the Windows Media Player to the latest version in order to see video on certain sites, alright I can do that...Wait what's this? MORE WGA???

Altogether I've had to reconfirm myself not to be a pirate a grand total of--go ahead and count them--seven times!!! And I'll have to reconfirm to Microsoft I'm not a pirate the next time I need to do updates, all over again because Microsoft wants to check me out again with the latest WGA version...

--bornagainpenguin (who wishes the software industry would take a page from the video game industry and stop punishing their customers to get at the few pirates who will always exist..)

The flaws in your argument are....

[Joce640k]

a) It doesn't stop piracy.

b) It does inconvenience the people who try to be legal.

eg. Me. I bought a laptop in Spain and wanted to make it English. I changed the keyboard for a UK keyboard $20 but the key on the back of the machine wont' work with an English copy of Windows. According to Microsoft I'm a thief....

I can't install the latest Windows Media Player on it, I can't access many downloads on their website and until very recently I couldn't upgrade Internet Explorer. Etc., etc.

Oh great

[Ed Avis]

But I always set the desktop background to black anyway!

WGA

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't all of you complaining about WGA, and anything else that Microsoft does for that matter, complain just as hard about the assholes that create pirating tools to allow users to bypass product activation. It's these rogue programmers that force Microsoft to act in ways that most of you seem to call draconian.

My WGA experience with MAK

[zerofoo]

For those that don't know Multiple Activation Keys(MAK), are part of the volume licensing program. You can either run a key management server on your network, or you can let the Vista machines call home to Microsoft.

Our company bought 5 copies of Vista to try out in the lab using MAK. We installed Vista on 3 machines, one was a Dell laptop. Last week, I replaced the hard drive with a solid state drive (used ghost to move the vista install to the new drive), and installed a new 802.11n wireless card. WGA decided that my laptop was out of tolerance, and decided to re-activate my MAK automatically.

Here's the interesting part - you can check the status of your MAK online. You can see how many activations you have against your MAK count. We have 3 installed copies of Vista, but Microsoft's license management site says we have 4 copies activated.

A small business that allows Microsoft to manage their MAK will be really screwed when their users or IT guys start upgrading computers. It is easy to see that a company that occasionally upgrades its hardware will falsely run out their MAK count, and be required to buy more MAK.

WGA is good for Microsoft's bottom line. Getting businesses to buy multiple activations for each computer is a good way to raise profits.

-ted

:D

[Anonymous Coward]

So I guess I'll just wait for a cracked Vista+SP1 torrent...

Parents?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm surprised that no one posted the old punchline updated for this story when they said it's kinder, but nags more:

"That's not WGA, that's my wife!"