Slashdot Mirror
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 It seems that the draconian features present in Vista RTM have been replaced by nag screens and annoyances such as repeatedly changing the desktop background to black.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."
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
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.
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.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
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.
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.
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.
throw new NoSignatureException();
"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?
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask where they're goin' and hook up with 'em later.
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.
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?
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.
Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Gates M'dna wgah'nagl fhtagn.
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.
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.
"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.
I believe that is hello.jpg.
"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.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
- 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?
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'