if they are at "work" I assume you have a sufficiently competant IT admin who manages the machine...espcially since its for "security reasons." Just don't install the patch.
Microsoft would never be stupid enough to do this. Even if the technology worked in the manner you describe, Microsoft would likely release a patch that disables verification. The proof is the number of customers who still use products like NT, Win9x. They are humming along just fine.
it may not fully stop individually pirates, but it will, via purchasing reputation, stop system builders selling illegal Windows software to customers. A poor reputation can be a very good deterant, take it from a Microsoft employee:)
Microsoft is a feedback and data-driven company so the only way you'll get answer to your question is time will tell. Depends if the goals in reducing piracy are met and how successfully.
Windows Update checks your PC to determine which updates it needs depending on what software and devices you have installed. The service does not collect personal information—Windows Update simply collects specific PC details needed for the update, including data such as computer make and model, version and ID numbers, and other such details.
Microsoft is committed to helping protect your privacy, and does not collect your name or other personally identifiable information. For more details on how the information is protected, see the Windows Update privacy statement.
Enterprise customers who use WSUS to centrally manage Windows Update won't be affected. Also, if you are concerned about enterprise activation technology, refer to the differences between MAK and KMS. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929712
#2 it will change the background. Sorry, if you're going to pirate it, we're not going to let you make it pretty.
This is not true. Go to parts of the world where system builders sell illegal copies of Windows along with their computers and you will see that normal non-technical people wouldn't know the difference. Microsoft doesn't go after individual pirates. Microsoft anti-piracy goes after those that profit from the reselling of pirated Windows.
this is not really true. Bill Gates said one time when talking about Chinese piracy, and to paraphrase, "if people are going to pirate software, we'd prefer they pirate ours."
WAT simply prevents general consumers from being fooled that their computers have a legally licensed copy of Windows. Many system builders in the past have sold customers Windows in this fashion, and many have been taken to court over it.
I'll just add this is an unsupported scenario.:) If you're going to pirate Windows, at least know that the source is trusted and without malicious code. I find it laughable that people express concerns about privacy but consider pirated software safe beyond doubt.
Personally speaking, pirated software is how things like personally identifiable information is acquired in things like online indentity theft and organized crime.
Had to do work on a client's computer. Has XP and WGA and all that.
1. User got notified every time he logged in that his copy was not genuine. 2. User could not open e-mail attachments in Outlook Express (let's not talk about how horrid this app is....) 3. User's background could not be set to anything other than MS Blue.
So the functionality was reduced here. I can't believe that they'd not do something to slightly annoy you to pay up. The cost to fix? $149, direct to MS via credit card.
WGA and WAT are two different things. The behavior you described was correct. In Windows 7, the background will change and notifications will appear, but applications will still continue to work. We won't be rebooting your machines or anything like that.
If you read the blog post it has some valid points about how it works:
1. Voluntary patch 2. When non-genuine copies deteced, OS functionality is NOT reduced 3. Yes, Microsoft does decided to notify/annoy you that you're not using genuine software which is a good thing because most people don't know they are. 4. The goal is reduce the number of Windows installations using pirated copies many of which include malicious code. 5. No personally identifiable information is transmitted. Details on this can be found in ANY of our privacy policies which are standard across all Microsoft products. 6. It does not apply to any enterprise installations where Windows Server Update Services (WSUS) is used. @FranTaylor, lots of people use Windows on a server...what planet are you one?:)
The slashdot headline is a little too Orwellian considering the body of the blog post. Looking forward to all the responses...I think.
OK - if your a developer - or anybody who is - please tell me something...
I just made a big jump from Win XP Pro and MSVC 6 to Windows 7 64 bit and VS2008, and I am trying to get up to speed. I created a very simple benchmarking console app on the old system and compiled a release build under MSVC 6, and then compiled exactly the same code under VS2008 on the new machine. No matter what optimizations I used, or whether I created a 32 bit release build or a 64 bit release build with VS2008, the exe created under the old MSVC ran about 25% faster on my new platform than the new build on my new platform. Question - what is it with VS2008? This is intolerable!
Try it yourself and get back to me.
I had a buddy on my team, Mike Tauty, take a look at your results and here is what he got:
"Ok – took a look at it. Results I got on my Dual Core T9600 at 2.80GHz were;
Original executable from the guy’s website;
4 minutes, 27 seconds, 840 milliseconds
Rebuilt code from his website built with a “Vanilla” C++ console application (VS2008 SP1) changing no settings at all;
4 minutes, 13 seconds, 639 milliseconds"
Mike doesn't really know what you're doing wrong but he offered a suggestion to "parallelize this on.NET with PFX and see what results that gives him:)"
If you still have doubts, email me (viralta@microsoft.com) and I'll connect you to Mike OR just contact him via his blog. http://www.mtaulty.com/
If you have to stick to VS2008 for work/business, and you are dealling with native applications in C++, make sure you download the Feature Pack for C++.
If you are just doing some personal development and are coming from the MSVC6 world, you'll likely be unlearning some things from 2008 if you goto 2010 later ex. app deployment. 2010 is pretty much coming out in a few months so the Beta 2 is feature locked for the most part, so it would be good to start here.
OK - if your a developer - or anybody who is - please tell me something...
I just made a big jump from Win XP Pro and MSVC 6 to Windows 7 64 bit and VS2008, and I am trying to get up to speed. I created a very simple benchmarking console app on the old system and compiled a release build under MSVC 6, and then compiled exactly the same code under VS2008 on the new machine. No matter what optimizations I used, or whether I created a 32 bit release build or a 64 bit release build with VS2008, the exe created under the old MSVC ran about 25% faster on my new platform than the new build on my new platform. Question - what is it with VS2008? This is intolerable!
Try it yourself and get back to me.
*DISCLAIMER* I work at Microsoft
the last few years, we've focused on enhancing.NET with our tools. With the next release of Visual Studio, we're focusing again on native code and taking the good things of VC6 and bringing them into Visual C++ 2010.
if you wanna give me some more info, i can push your feedback to the product team. Can you tell me exactly where EBS sucks around "integration" ? The reason I ask, is that I'm really hard pressed to find any article, review, or customer who hates EBS or says it sucks. Your insight would be appreciated.
seriously, do you have no other work than to troll a Microsoft guy trying to make a suggestion to use a product that will actually solve the poster's problem?
This whole post lacks information on the environment, userbase, company etc etc. Almost no one is giving any advice that is actionable.
Bottom line, this is a company with about a dozen servers serving 150 people. This is a low workload for thing the post cited. While everyone is talking about HA, virtualization, and everything else, what this guy is really asking is how should i think about consolidation and improved supportability. The guy is clearly clueless about modern IT or an amateur, so fundamentally according to Slashdot, it just makes sense for him to move to a Microsoft stack right? If he was an actual Linux guy, then he wouldn't have even posted such a silly question.
If the poster is reading this and you're thinking about virtualization as an option, you may consider Microsoft Hyper-V Server R2...its FREE as in beer and supports all workloads. But like Junta, virtualization is not the right move based on your described needs. Modern boxes can reliably handle the services you describe.
EBS can be complicated if you doing a very complex services environment with many nodes, but for 150 people and for the services the poster is talking about I highly doubt there would be a blocker.
As far as SBS 2008, the product is meant to be used with no or only part-time IT staff. The box can be administered remotely and requires very little maintainence so I'm not sure what you're talking about.
Yes, with both products you get slightly older versions of server and Exchange, but its still probably years ahead of what the users are getting today with a seven y/o environment. Not everyone goes for the latest and greatest. That said, you can bet that the R2 version will come out in months, not years. I know this cause I work at Microsoft. Integration WS08R2 will be easy. Exchange 2010 will be easier than 2007 since it actually reduces system overhead and overall requirements.
The final thought on this is that if an IT manager were to wait to implement the latest and greatest, nothing would ever get done. At some point you make a decision and actually plan out a 3-5 year rollout strategy. Few things in IT happen overnight. If people considering EBS or SBS now are worried about using older tech, then purchasing Software Assurance along with it would give them upgrades to newer versions when they are released.
Slashdot Mirror
MOD PARENT UP
i could send you evidence to all your concerns, but since you're an Anonymous Coward i'll just ignore you. :) Have a nice day!
if they are at "work" I assume you have a sufficiently competant IT admin who manages the machine...espcially since its for "security reasons." Just don't install the patch.
Microsoft would never be stupid enough to do this. Even if the technology worked in the manner you describe, Microsoft would likely release a patch that disables verification. The proof is the number of customers who still use products like NT, Win9x. They are humming along just fine.
cool...at least you're not using linux :)
We have a "mainframe" of sorts...its called Windows Azure :)
http://www.windowsazure.com/
MOD PARENT UP
well said :)
it may not fully stop individually pirates, but it will, via purchasing reputation, stop system builders selling illegal Windows software to customers. A poor reputation can be a very good deterant, take it from a Microsoft employee :)
I've been reading Slashdot for over 10 years i think. :) The guys at Port 25 probably read slashdot a lot!
Port 25 is the Open-Source Lab at Microsoft
http://port25.technet.com/
Microsoft is a feedback and data-driven company so the only way you'll get answer to your question is time will tell. Depends if the goals in reducing piracy are met and how successfully.
Windows Update checks your PC to determine which updates it needs depending on what software and devices you have installed. The service does not collect personal information—Windows Update simply collects specific PC details needed for the update, including data such as computer make and model, version and ID numbers, and other such details.
Microsoft is committed to helping protect your privacy, and does not collect your name or other personally identifiable information. For more details on how the information is protected, see the Windows Update privacy statement.
Enterprise customers who use WSUS to centrally manage Windows Update won't be affected. Also, if you are concerned about enterprise activation technology, refer to the differences between MAK and KMS.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929712
#2 it will change the background. Sorry, if you're going to pirate it, we're not going to let you make it pretty.
This is not true. Go to parts of the world where system builders sell illegal copies of Windows along with their computers and you will see that normal non-technical people wouldn't know the difference. Microsoft doesn't go after individual pirates. Microsoft anti-piracy goes after those that profit from the reselling of pirated Windows.
this is not really true. Bill Gates said one time when talking about Chinese piracy, and to paraphrase, "if people are going to pirate software, we'd prefer they pirate ours."
WAT simply prevents general consumers from being fooled that their computers have a legally licensed copy of Windows. Many system builders in the past have sold customers Windows in this fashion, and many have been taken to court over it.
I'll just add this is an unsupported scenario. :) If you're going to pirate Windows, at least know that the source is trusted and without malicious code. I find it laughable that people express concerns about privacy but consider pirated software safe beyond doubt.
Personally speaking, pirated software is how things like personally identifiable information is acquired in things like online indentity theft and organized crime.
Had to do work on a client's computer. Has XP and WGA and all that.
1. User got notified every time he logged in that his copy was not genuine.
2. User could not open e-mail attachments in Outlook Express (let's not talk about how horrid this app is....)
3. User's background could not be set to anything other than MS Blue.
So the functionality was reduced here. I can't believe that they'd not do something to slightly annoy you to pay up. The cost to fix? $149, direct to MS via credit card.
WGA and WAT are two different things. The behavior you described was correct. In Windows 7, the background will change and notifications will appear, but applications will still continue to work. We won't be rebooting your machines or anything like that.
//Microsoft Employee here//
If you read the blog post it has some valid points about how it works:
1. Voluntary patch :)
2. When non-genuine copies deteced, OS functionality is NOT reduced
3. Yes, Microsoft does decided to notify/annoy you that you're not using genuine software which is a good thing because most people don't know they are.
4. The goal is reduce the number of Windows installations using pirated copies many of which include malicious code.
5. No personally identifiable information is transmitted. Details on this can be found in ANY of our privacy policies which are standard across all Microsoft products.
6. It does not apply to any enterprise installations where Windows Server Update Services (WSUS) is used. @FranTaylor, lots of people use Windows on a server...what planet are you one?
The slashdot headline is a little too Orwellian considering the body of the blog post. Looking forward to all the responses...I think.
OK - if your a developer - or anybody who is - please tell me something...
I just made a big jump from Win XP Pro and MSVC 6 to Windows 7 64 bit and VS2008, and I am trying to get up to speed. I created a very simple benchmarking console app on the old system and compiled a release build under MSVC 6, and then compiled exactly the same code under VS2008 on the new machine. No matter what optimizations I used, or whether I created a 32 bit release build or a 64 bit release build with VS2008, the exe created under the old MSVC ran about 25% faster on my new platform than the new build on my new platform. Question - what is it with VS2008? This is intolerable!
Try it yourself and get back to me.
I had a buddy on my team, Mike Tauty, take a look at your results and here is what he got:
"Ok – took a look at it. Results I got on my Dual Core T9600 at 2.80GHz were;
Original executable from the guy’s website;
4 minutes, 27 seconds, 840 milliseconds
Rebuilt code from his website built with a “Vanilla” C++ console application (VS2008 SP1) changing no settings at all;
4 minutes, 13 seconds, 639 milliseconds"
Below is the link to the VS project on my Skydrive:
http://cid-8240a465deae9c2e.skydrive.live.com/self.aspx/Public/WebGuy.zip
Mike doesn't really know what you're doing wrong but he offered a suggestion to "parallelize this on .NET with PFX and see what results that gives him :)"
If you still have doubts, email me (viralta@microsoft.com) and I'll connect you to Mike OR just contact him via his blog. http://www.mtaulty.com/
This is actually not true. Windows 7 beat Harry Potter for highest pre-sale item in Amazon.com history. http://bit.ly/7hnx8i
A good chunk of our revenue comes from the box actually, even with Vista.
I work at Microsoft :)
If you have to stick to VS2008 for work/business, and you are dealling with native applications in C++, make sure you download the Feature Pack for C++.
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=D466226B-8DAB-445F-A7B4-448B326C48E7&displaylang=en
If you are just doing some personal development and are coming from the MSVC6 world, you'll likely be unlearning some things from 2008 if you goto 2010 later ex. app deployment. 2010 is pretty much coming out in a few months so the Beta 2 is feature locked for the most part, so it would be good to start here.
stay tuned for an answer on perf.
OK - if your a developer - or anybody who is - please tell me something...
I just made a big jump from Win XP Pro and MSVC 6 to Windows 7 64 bit and VS2008, and I am trying to get up to speed. I created a very simple benchmarking console app on the old system and compiled a release build under MSVC 6, and then compiled exactly the same code under VS2008 on the new machine. No matter what optimizations I used, or whether I created a 32 bit release build or a 64 bit release build with VS2008, the exe created under the old MSVC ran about 25% faster on my new platform than the new build on my new platform. Question - what is it with VS2008? This is intolerable!
Try it yourself and get back to me.
*DISCLAIMER* I work at Microsoft
the last few years, we've focused on enhancing .NET with our tools. With the next release of Visual Studio, we're focusing again on native code and taking the good things of VC6 and bringing them into Visual C++ 2010.
Check out why "10 is the New 6" http://channel9.msdn.com/pdc2008/TL13/
I'm curious on the perf issue myself so I'll try to get an answer back to you, but in the meantime, would you mind running the same test using Visual Studio 2010 Beta?
http://www.microsoft.com/visualstudio/en-gb/try/default.mspx
if you wanna give me some more info, i can push your feedback to the product team. Can you tell me exactly where EBS sucks around "integration" ? The reason I ask, is that I'm really hard pressed to find any article, review, or customer who hates EBS or says it sucks. Your insight would be appreciated.
we drones then to have a human side :)
seriously, do you have no other work than to troll a Microsoft guy trying to make a suggestion to use a product that will actually solve the poster's problem?
This whole post lacks information on the environment, userbase, company etc etc. Almost no one is giving any advice that is actionable.
Bottom line, this is a company with about a dozen servers serving 150 people. This is a low workload for thing the post cited. While everyone is talking about HA, virtualization, and everything else, what this guy is really asking is how should i think about consolidation and improved supportability. The guy is clearly clueless about modern IT or an amateur, so fundamentally according to Slashdot, it just makes sense for him to move to a Microsoft stack right? If he was an actual Linux guy, then he wouldn't have even posted such a silly question.
If the poster is reading this and you're thinking about virtualization as an option, you may consider Microsoft Hyper-V Server R2...its FREE as in beer and supports all workloads. But like Junta, virtualization is not the right move based on your described needs. Modern boxes can reliably handle the services you describe.
http://www.microsoft.com/hyper-v-server/en/us/default.aspx
Junta, get a life or start a blog about why Microsoft sucks...I'll even comment on it :) prick
EBS can be complicated if you doing a very complex services environment with many nodes, but for 150 people and for the services the poster is talking about I highly doubt there would be a blocker.
As far as SBS 2008, the product is meant to be used with no or only part-time IT staff. The box can be administered remotely and requires very little maintainence so I'm not sure what you're talking about.
Yes, with both products you get slightly older versions of server and Exchange, but its still probably years ahead of what the users are getting today with a seven y/o environment. Not everyone goes for the latest and greatest. That said, you can bet that the R2 version will come out in months, not years. I know this cause I work at Microsoft. Integration WS08R2 will be easy. Exchange 2010 will be easier than 2007 since it actually reduces system overhead and overall requirements.
The final thought on this is that if an IT manager were to wait to implement the latest and greatest, nothing would ever get done. At some point you make a decision and actually plan out a 3-5 year rollout strategy. Few things in IT happen overnight. If people considering EBS or SBS now are worried about using older tech, then purchasing Software Assurance along with it would give them upgrades to newer versions when they are released.
mod up.