Microsoft Denies the Windows Kill Switch

WindozeSux writes "Microsoft has denied that WGA will kill pirated copies of Windows. According to Waggener Edstrom,"Microsoft anti-piracy technologies cannot and will not turn off your computer." Microsoft also says that WGA is a necessary part of its campaign to catch those illegally using Windows XP which leads one to think what WGA really does then."

"We can't turn off your computer"

[by Anonymous Coward]

"Because we broke power management in the latest update. We will, however, make sure Windows doesn't boot once your computer is on."

Re:"We can't turn off your computer"

[kabz (770151)]

Yes, we have reverted to the Windows 95 technique where we shut all processes down, and display a screen that says:

"Please Turn Off Your Computer (Aaaarrrrgghhh Matey)"

Re:"We can't turn off your computer"

[rbarreira (836272)]

I hadn't thought about this in a long time, but your post made me remember of a trick (and security hole) to get a dos prompt on a win95 (and 98?) computer! Just type "mode co80" and/or "cls" on the "It's now safe to turn off your computer screen", which seems to be running on top of a command.com shell hehe.

Re:"We can't turn off your computer"

[sumdumass (711423)]

In the older win2000 and NT systems, using a win98 boot floppy with the ntfs files copies to it (as described in making an ERD) we used to rename the cmd.exe from the system or system32 directory and insert it as the logon screen saver. The process would give us fully functional command promt at the logon screen were we could change passwords or check other things like server settings.

It should work on win95-98 systems too except you would do it ot the regular screen saver. also you still can do stuff like this with the printer commands so to elevate to admin access all you would have to do is print to a hidden network printer. just like in win95, this is great for acessing recovering passwords and such. Although there are easier ways availible now.

They can't and won't eh?

[rbochan (827946)]

Tell that to David Coursey [com.com].

"SO, HERE I AM, sitting in a jet at 34,000 feet someplace above God-only-knows-where, using my computer and minding my own business when Microsoft threatens to essentially shut down my copy of Office. And at the very start of a week-long business trip, too."

And this coming from one of the biggest Microsoft schill sites on the planet.

That's copy protection for ya

[Animaether (411575)]

Basically I'm sure the software for his Palm introduced a new networking component that has caused this. It happens with our software all the time. We have a licensing mechanism that ties into a few hardware parts of the computer - the basic HDD serial number and the MAC address being two of them which is public info. So if you introduce a new NIC of any sort, the license breaks. And of course people can go "OMFG WTF!?" all the want - but here's the deal... for those people who, for example, use a USB bluetooth dongle and plug that in and out all the time, the license breaks and unbreaks (we get them a new license which now ties to the MAC of the bluetooth dongle) then breaks again as they remove it, etc we make a new license key that ignores the MAC address.

Now guess what has happened, twice, already...

They come to us and say that they had to replace the HDD after a crash. They send in a new authorization file, we check - the MAC is the same, the machine name is the same, the HDD s/n is different. Fair 'nuff. So we should get them a new license.

Or should we? Because in two verified situations, all the end-user did was rename a second computer, stick their bluetooth USB key in that, and generated an auth for it. So guess what happens? We get them another license file for what should have been the same computer with a different HDD, but which is essentially a second computer; because the MAC identifier was the USB key, the license type is MAC-less, and so will happily run on that computer.

Instant free extra licenses - 'piracy' at its best.

So although the author may whine about a change, probably a network stack change, he has his colleagues in the industry to thank for it - because we all know it's not going to stop the users who specifically set out to get an illegal copy, but it will stop those sneaky bastards who prefer not to get caught with pants down with a known illegal copy and instead have a 'licensed' copy to show to any auditing entity.

In a perfect world, people would be honest. In a perfect world, copy and licensing protections wouldn't have to exist. Here's to all software becoming free-as-in-beer and professional coders finding a way to make a living through other means, so that everybody benefits. Just a shame that's not going to happen anytime soon.

Re:That's copy protection for ya

[HiThere (15173)]

Interesting justification. Possibly even true.

Guess what? I don't care. If you are threatening to shut down my computer, that's an excellent reason NOT to use your product. Ever. Under any circumstances. Or ever recommend it.

Now I'm not a typical user, since I read the nlank-dashed MS EULA and decided already that I didn't want to go there. Over 5 years ago. That MS has just gotten worse since then only re-confirms that I made the correct decision. When I must, I use a Mac. Otherwise I use Linux. And when I use a Mac, I don't use MSOffice and I don't use MSIE. I use Seamonkey and NeoOffice (or, recently, OpenOffice2).

You'd never guess that I started out as an MS appologist "Not that bad, for a monopoly" I said. Well, at the time it was true, but it's not true anymore.

So. Do I beleive that "They won't shut down your computer."? No. I *DO* believe that that's the official party line, and that if the hoorah is too much they may delay implementing it until Vista has people more securely locked in. And I believe that this comment was a "trial baloon", but I don't think that it being shot down will change their plans, only the timing.

Please, this was never going to happen

[adamwright (536224)]

This was obvious from day one. In any deployment of software there will be bugs, and I've read plenty of incidents of WGA not recognising valid installations (or people using invalid keys for valid purchases). Even if the failure rate was 0.001%, that's still thousands of machines "killed" incorrectly. If just one of these happened to be a prominent journalist, IT decision maker or similar, the fallout for MS would be far worse than anything they'd gain by the action.

So, another hyped story killed with a modicum of common sense (and I'm certainly not the first to point this out). I thought IT communities were meant to be filled with rational people?

Re:Please, this was never going to happen

[westlake (615356)]

I thought IT communities were meant to be filled with rational people?

One can but hope.
Slashdot tends to shake your faith a little.

Re:Please, this was never going to happen

[Itchy Rich (818896)]

One can but hope. Slashdot tends to shake your faith a little.

Shh... Slashdot users aren't meant to understand irony.

Re:Please, this was never going to happen

[ratboy666 (104074)]

So, be rational.

What is the purpose of WGA? Windows Genuine Advantage.

It's purpose is to enforce Microsoft's Intellectual Property Rights. And what right is that? There are really only two -- the right to be paid for Windows, and the right to not have to support Windows that has not been paid for. (and, Customer Education).

The only way to enforce being paid for Windows via WGA is to turn off Windows that haven't been paid for.

The only way to enforce the support right, is to not allow support if WGA is not present, or finds that Windows has not been paid for.

WGA won't work on non-Microsoft platforms. (Microsoft will support Windows 98 and ME without validation, &etc. but has stated that NON-MICROSOFT platforms are not supported by WGA).

Not running WGA locks the user out of the Microsoft Download Center.

Which leads to the "Advantage" part: If you are running Microsoft products on a Microsoft platform, you have the advantage of being able to given access to the Microsoft Download Center for support.

That, of course, can't be true, because it is a violation of US monoply laws (it locks the use of MS Office to the use of Windows). Since it is ridiculous to presume that a company would so blatantly ignore laws, this cannot be the case.

So, either WGA is not needed to get download support for Microsoft Office, OR WGA disables Windows. One is illegal; and the other is silly.

Since I run Microsoft Office under Wine, I wonder if I can request any support via sending of the updates by a different channel (and I will not "crack", "reverse", etc. WGA). Has anyone tried this? Because if that is the case, there is another alternative:

WGA is a tool that simply boosts consumer awareness of bootleg Windows. And that I am completely supportive of.

Ratboy.

Re:Please, this was never going to happen

[jnuzzo (313424)]

Which all points to a very convenient (and paranoid) conspiracy theory. Or should I say "another" MS conspiracy theory... try to be rational without rationalizing

It's entirely plausible that WGA does a couple of different things without actually being yet another evil conspiracy, and without any active intervention on installed systems.

Here are a couple of plausible theories that make WGA's existence productive, while not infringing on anybody's rights.

1. WGA just identifies pirated copies.
You buy a new system from a smallish vendor. On your first trip to Windows Update, you see a screen telling you that your OS is pirated. Irate, you complain to the vendor; to MS; and escalate through your state's regulatory agencies. This helps MS isolate pirates but does not affect your ability to get updates beyond a "nag" screen.

2. WGA helps MS collect statistics and nothing else.
When systems connect to get fixes, WGA keeps a counter of pirate-detctions. This allows MS to decide how much to budget for future legal enforcement, and how much to budget for future anti-theft engineering.

Re:Please, this was never going to happen

[deblau (68023)]

When talking about 'intellectual property' rights, let's be more clear.

It's purpose is to enforce Microsoft's Intellectual Property Rights. And what right is that? There are really only two -- the right to be paid for Windows, and the right to not have to support Windows that has not been paid for.

Let's start with the first 'right': the right to be paid. Simply put, there is no such right. You won't find it anywhere in the laws of the United States. No one is required by law to buy Windows from Microsoft (certain public offices notwithstanding). While it is true that external factors (ease-of-use, company policy, etc) strongly compel purchasing decisions, those factors are not legal, and do not create a 'right' of payment.

Now, the second 'right': the right to receive support. Again, there is no such legal right. True, there are implied warranties of merchantability [lectlaw.com], but these can be expressly disclaimed by an EULA. Let's take a look at the XP Home Edition [microsoft.com] EULA:

15. LIMITED WARRANTY FOR SOFTWARE ACQUIRED IN THE US AND CANADA. Microsoft warrants that the Software will perform substantially in accordance with the accompanying materials for a period of ninety (90) days from the date of receipt. If an implied warranty or condition is created by your state /jurisdiction and federal or state/provincial law prohibits disclaimer of it, you also have an implied warranty or condition, BUT ONLY AS TO DEFECTS DISCOVERED DURING THE PERIOD OF THIS LIMITED WARRANTY (NINETY DAYS). AS TO ANY DEFECTS DISCOVERED AFTER THE NINETY-DAY PERIOD, THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF ANY KIND.

YOUR EXCLUSIVE REMEDY. Microsoft's and its suppliers' entire liability and your exclusive remedy for any breach of this Limited Warranty or for any other breach of this EULA or for any other liability relating to the Software shall be, at Microsoft's option from time to time exercised subject to applicable law, (a) return of the amount paid (if any) for the Software, or (b) repair or replacement of the Software, that does not meet this Limited Warranty and that is returned to Microsoft with a copy of your receipt. You will receive the remedy elected by Microsoft without charge, except that you are responsible for any expenses you may incur (e.g. cost of shipping the Software to Microsoft).

So there you have it. They don't have to support their software, ever. If Windows breaks, they have to (a) refund your money, or (b) give you a replacement. They do not have to (c) fix the broken software. Just to make sure you understand that this is their only obligation, they include

16. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES. The Limited Warranty that appears above is the only express warranty made to you and is provided in lieu of any other express warranties or similar obligations (if any) created by any advertising, documentation, packaging, or other communications. Except for the Limited Warranty and to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, Microsoft and its suppliers provide the Software and support services (if any) AS IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS, and hereby disclaim all other warranties and conditions, whether express, implied or statutory, including, but not limited to, any (if any) implied warranties, duties or conditions of merchantability, of fitness for a particular purpose, of reliability or availability, of accuracy or completeness of responses, of results, of workmanlike effort, of lack of viruses, and of lack of negligence, all with regard to the Software, and the provision of or failure to provide support or other services, information, software, and related content through the Software or otherwise arising out of the use of the Software.

Microsoft has no duty to support Windows. You have no right to receive support for Windows. The main reason Microsoft supports their software is because it's buggy and they don't want people to use something else.

Re: Please, this was never going to happen

[QuietLagoon (813062)]

Note the very careful wording in the Mircosoft's press release. Microsoft's PR firm (not Microsoft) is saying that WGA will not "will not turn off your computer". The release says nothing about preventing Windows from running, which was what a Microsoft person had previously stated.

So Microsoft, through their press agent, has denied something that they were not accused of planning to do. Releasing the denial through th epress agent prevents any further questions on the matter. The agent will just say that they have said all they know.

Bottom line: the matter of whether or not WGA will prevent a copy of Windows from running remains unsettled.

I'm one of those .001%

[jmichaelg (148257)]

No, Microsoft doesn't disable your computer - it just disables your ability to install patches which, given the frequency of OS exploits, is tantamount to the same thing as disabling your computer.

I'm one of those .001% - WGA thinks I pirated my copy of XP even though I bought it at Costco. When I disabled the "you have an illegal copy of Windows" balloon via the security panel, another little message popped up saying that I would no longer be able to download patches. I suspect WGA was unhappy because I had disabled several services such as remote registry and alerter.

I can understand Microsoft's desire not to get ripped off but at the same time, I'm not sympathetic if their software falsely accuses me of being a thief and I end up losing a couple of hours figuring out what their problem is.

Story was made by M$.

[twitter (104583)]

So, another hyped story killed with a modicum of common sense

Common sense does not apply with an organization like M$. From the fine article:

A ZDNet.com blogger reported earlier in the week on a conversation between a Windows user and a Microsoft support staffer, who allegedly admitted that users who refused to install the WGA update would be given 30 days before their copies of Windows would stop working. ZDNet.com said that Microsoft refused to deny the report at the time. But later, Microsoft appeared to sing a different tune. No, Microsoft antipiracy technologies cannot and will not turn off your computer,

That's what I remember too, amazing.

There would have been no kill switch story if M$ had just been honest to begin with. They are not honest, so all you are left with is the facts: WGA installs itself, if you don't have it they won't give you "updates", when installed it phones home every day.

Speculation based on those facts and previous behavior is natural. For years, minor changes to your hardware would stop your M$ computer from working ether through technical failure or forced reregistration. Given their willingness to ship buggy product and previous mechanisms that "turn your computer off", a reasonable person would guess WGA would be doing the same thing. Indeed, what's it going to do if it does find a "non genuine copy"?

M$'s intentionally bad non free driver situation can be compared to live CDs. Knoppix, auto configures in less time than it takes XP to boot and still has room for a complete office suite and web server. Changing hardware in a M$ computer is tricky at best. Even if you are successful, you will often be forced to re register.

M$'s practice of forced reregistration on minor hardware changes has no parallel in any industry.

The William Gates Agent [WGA] is going to suck.

Re:Please, this was never going to happen

[by Anonymous Coward]

I had a similar problem, but with a completely different outcome.

I have a laptop and a desktop. I had WIN2K running on both. Dell was sending me an XP upgrade for my laptop. I got tired of waiting, so I went to the store and bought XP and upgraded my laptop. I figured I could use the laptop upgrade when it arrives for my desktop. When the xp laptop upgrade arrive, I tried to install it on my desktop. The license keys would not work on my desktop. I had two valid licenses, but they were installed on the wrong systems.

I called microsoft's 800 number (from the activation screen) and explained the situation. I wanted to switch my license keys. I did not want to reinstall since I had already loaded many applications and did not want to go through that process again. The microsoft rep said they could not switch the keys, but they would just give me another key for my desktop that would work.

I was shocked! I said, "that means I will have 3 valid xp licenses." I said I could wipe my systems clean and install them the right way and then I'd have a valid key leftover that I could give away. The support rep said they hoped I would not do that, but it was possible.

So even though I know it is cool to bash microsoft, this is a case where they went out of their way to help me. I called them for help and 10 minutes later I had my situation fixed. No need to reinstall Windows or switch os's all together.

Re:Please, this was never going to happen

[HardCase (14757)]

...we bought a legit copy of XP Home and installed it using the product key that the HP machine came with...

Oh no you didn't. The retail XP would not accept the OEM key. You made the story up! I guess we know why you posted AC.

-h-

Re:Please, this was never going to happen...riight

[babbling (952366)]

They might not be a nice company, but I hope they manage to make every single user pay for Windows, soon. I doubt they will, though, because I think they'd rather people use Windows illegally than use an alternative operating system.

Re:Please, this was never going to happen...riight

[jhylkema (545853)]

That's what they're doing in China. I remember reading some Microsoft exec saying, "If they're going to steal software, I'd rather it be our software."

They might not be a nice company

[falconwolf (725481)]

but I hope they manage to make every single user pay for Windows, soon.

The thing is is you don't try to force users to pay by screwing your legitimate users. Instead of getting more people to pay you may drive them away. That's what they're doing to me. I've been buying and using PCs with Windows for almost 10 years but the next computer I get will be a Mac. If MS includes Activation [microsoft.com] in a product I won't buy it if I can get away without having it.

Falcon

I know what WGA does!

[Nevtje(hr (869571)]

...it automatically sends a raid order of your premises to Tomas Bodström and the swedish police!

The real question is..!

[by Anonymous Coward]

The question is why not kill pirated copies of Windows?

Re:The real question is..!

[mrjb (547783)]

The question is why not kill pirated copies of Windows?

Because a pirated copy of windows does MS more good than a legal alternative OS?

Re:The real question is..!

[Bios_Hakr (68586)]

Here's a little hint: If pirated copies stopped working, people would buy a legal copy. Computers and components cost a lot. Anyone with the extra scap around to build a custom PC would be more than willing to shell out $99 for WinXP Home. And if you bought your PC, then just throw in the restore disc.

I know linux mentality suggests that 99% of the pirates would suddenly up and switch to an alternative. It won't happen.

Grandma will not spend thousands on a new Mac; she'll get the Geek Squad to install Windows.

Mom won't install Ubuntu; she'll drop a Benjamin on WinXP.

Starving college kids will head over the the school bookstore and grab a student copy for next to nothing.

And MS will make it easy. They'll drop prices and offer discounts if you rat out who gave you the copy. They might even release a tool to map out the distribution of license keys to see if they could track the original licensee.

A WinXP killswitch will not boost the download stats for Debian or RedHat. It'll just boost MS 3rd quarter earnings.

Re:The real question is..!

[SeaFox (739806)]

Here's a little hint: If pirated copies stopped working, people would buy a legal copy.

Wow, do you go to RIAA University? The same one that says if P2P doesn't exist all those customers would go out and buy those CDs and DVDs they pirated?

Re:The real question is..!

[jimicus (737525)]

You're either a troll or you've been living under a rock for the last week.

Because Windows Genuine Advantage is not 100% accurate.

It has declared PCs to be running an illegal copy of Windows when that is not the case.

Now, if Microsoft could guarantee that they were only turning off pirate's PCs, fine. But the first PC they turn off that isn't running a pirated copy of Windows has some pretty nasty repercussions. Especially if that PC happens to be in a large company or owned by a journalist, lawyer or even a prominent person with a blog.

Myself, I think this is the trial run. Let's face it, the first incarnation of anything from Microsoft always sucks. Doubtless Vista will ship with an improved version of WGA, which is slightly harder to crack. Then, a year or two down the line (perhaps with the first service pack), there will be another improved version which actually works quite well. Then... well, then remote killing of pirated Windows installations may just happen.

Phoning home

[elgee (308600)]

If WGA phones home more than once, it is proabably up to no good. If it discovers that your copy of Windows is legal, why on earth would it need to contact MS more than once?

It may well be checking for pirated movies, songs, etc and MS may be in cahoots with RIAA/MPAA/BOHICA.

if the records exist, RIAA or anyone can subpoena

[by Anonymous Coward]

Once a record of what is stored on your computer exists at MS, it can be subpoenaed by RIAA, the government, or virtually any company involved in a law suite about virtually anything.

It doesn't matter what MS says about your privacy. If they have your information, they can't protect it from subpoena.

The only safe windows box is one that has no connection to the internet.

Re:Phoning home

[jfengel (409917)]

It phones home more than once because hard drives can be cloned. If the thing only poked its head up once, pirates would run a single legal box until WGA verified itself, then make copies of that disk and sell them. So it has to check every time if the brain wakes up in a "new body".

There's far less cause for it to phone home if it wakes up in the same old body. There's some complexity going on if you replace a hardware component; defining "a computer" is tricky.

What does WGA do?

[Richard_at_work (517087)]

From the article:

Microsoft also says that WGA is a necessary part of its campaign to catch those illegally using Windows XP which leads one to think what WGA really does then.

WGA is not to stop *us* from pirating Windows, thats never going to be successful. However, it will prove successful against those shops selling whitebox builds with illegal copies of Windows, and it already gives a cheap (or is it still free?) option to consumers caught out like that in return for providing evidence against their supplier (receipt etc).

These are the people that need to be stopped.

Re:What does WGA do?

[Dachannien (617929)]

If MS would offer whitebox builders the same price that they offer to the big OEMs like Dell and Gateway, they'd probably see a lot less for-profit piracy. As it stands, the small shops can put together good quality hardware and come out slightly ahead of the big companies, but the moment they add in software (including Windows and Office), they end up being forced to offer the complete system at a very uncompetitive price.

Stop Piracy

[neoform (551705)]

"Microsoft also says that WGA is a necessary part of its campaign to catch those illegally using Windows XP"

It sure didn't stop me.. nor did it stop anyone else i know who's got an illegal copy. But it sure did piss off a whole lot of people who did pay for their copy..

Re:Stop Piracy

[westlake (615356)]

But it sure did piss off a whole lot of people who did pay for their copy.

I doubt that even the tinest fraction of Windows users (who do not post to Slashdot) have given a second thought to WGA or even heard any one of the paranoid rumors which fill these pages.

Several purposes, perhaps...

[blcamp (211756)]

I'm just speculating here, just my best guesses (so mods, keep that in mind):

1. They can't (intentionally) kill working copies now. If they killed too many legit copies from too many "false positives", they'd be slapped with a class action that would make the current EU anti-trust pale by comparison.

2. While they can't kill windows, they can divide it into two classes (legit and cracked), and thus allow the legit ones to have all the eye candy and other accessories... not that too many people really care all that much about Power Calculator.

3. It is a test program for a future version of Windows, where they can very reliably kill cracked versions of the product, once they fine-tune their ability to tell a cracked version from a legit one.

I can only hope, however, they don't bog thier products down with so much "detection code" that the app is 90% slower... like recent versions of Norton Systemworks.

Re:Several purposes, perhaps...

[Peyna (14792)]

What they really need is better copy protection out the door, instead of relying on a way of detecting it after the fact, they should be finding ways to prevent it beforehand.

I think probably one of the biggest mistakes Microsoft made regarding copy protection was in its method of handling volume licensing. Entire Universities across the country were given a copy of Windows that requires no activation or anything, along with (in many cases) one CD key for the lot. All anyone had to do was copy that CD, give away that CD key and those people are immune from detection. Of course, Microsoft knows a lot of those CD keys that have spread like wildfire, but they haven't blocked the one I got from my university yet.

Better copy protection and management in volume licensing upfront would have gone a long way to prevent a lot of these problems. I do suppose there is a balancing of factors taking place, in that on one hand you don't want to overburden customers that are feeding you millions for a volume license, but on the other hand, you also don't want them to turn around and give a copy to every family member and friend and acquaintance.

How Do They Detect Pirated XP Corporate?

[TomHandy (578620)]

It seems like a lot of people who have pirated Windows XP just go ahead and use Windows XP Corporate (which doesn't require activation or a license key). How does MS detect a legit copy of XP Corporate vs. someone who is using a pirated copy of it?

Re:How Do They Detect Pirated XP Corporate?

[ScrewMaster (602015)]

It does too require a product key, it just doesn't require activation. Microsoft has been known to deactivate specific keys from the Corporate Edition on occasion, if it has been found to have been leaked and is commonly used for illegal installations.

Kind of funny

[Lumpy (12016)]

I know of 2 major corperations that do not allow WGA to be installed on their machines because of sarbanes Oxley rules they have as well as not installing apps that report back information outside the company.

So microsoft will not risk pissing off an entire corperation sized customer by turning anything off.

Personally I wish they did such a boneheaded move. No matter what the naysayers believe it would force a switch to something else and braindead easy installs like Ubuntu and Mandriva will capture a larger amount of pc's.

The bulk of PC owners out there do not care about playing games except at places like pop-cap and other web based time wasters, they dont go shopping for software on a regular basis. They want their pc to do simple web stuff.

I have converted a large number of people over to ubuntu on their pc after scaring theim with the latest MS fud about not having WGA on there to spy on you they will get viruses and trojans ant other things instantly. So they begrudingly try ubuntu and then 2-3 months later ask me to erase their windows partition for more disk space.

Are they pissed they cant play Quake4 or the sims2 latest expansion pack? nope most people dont have a PC capable of playing them nor plan on buying one.

The low end computing power web/wordprocessing only people outnumber game buyers almost 30 to 1. And those that buy software at best buy and the likes only do so after they find out they cant do it at home already. Ubuntu gives them a button to get free software instantly and without effort so they save more money and I dont have to go support their pc on a weekly basis like I did with windowsXP.

Wonder

[donutello (88309)]

That last line should read:

which leads one to wonder what WGA really does then.

Come on. That's what editors are supposed to do.

It's all in the name...

[ErikZ (55491)]

Well duh. It's not a "Kill Switch"

It's a "Happy Sleepy Funtime Switch!"

Didn't actually refute the claim, did they?

[Teddy Beartuzzi (727169)]

The only quote in that story is that "No, Microsoft antipiracy technologies cannot and will not turn off your computer". That's not the same thing as saying "No, Microsoft antipiracy technologies cannot and will not stop Windows from operating."

My computer can still be on, but XP refuses to boot.

As It Unfolded

[Quirk (36086)]

In the 90's Microsoft would go into major cities, set up a booth and offer to exchange illegal copies of MS software for legitimate copies.

I believe up until at least Me version and possibly Windows 2000 owners were allowed to install the OS on 2 computers in the family home and carry the OS over to a new mobo when owners updated their hardware. Fast forward to today.

Now, if Windows owners update their mobo's they must purchase a new OS and Home versions of Windows can only be installed on one mobo.

While MS pc Windows is still highly profitable it's no longer expanding in leaps and bounds. It may be that any forseeable increase in profits MS can see for Windows is in squeezing owners of pirated editions.

Personally as I've posted before I'm in countdown mode on Win Xp in a switch over to all Linux/BSD machines. By way of my parents buying my first pcs and my own purchases, as an individual, I've invested in MS DOS, Windows/NT and Office pro for 23 years. No more. I can motivate many people in my sphere of influence to switch to FOSS, but I can't do it if I'm still buying Windows for multimedia/games/web purposes.

If MS can access my computer on a daily basis under the guise of looking for it's stolen property than it's not out of the question that they can accesss my computer for the government. If you have Windows installed on an internet connected pc then you should have zero tolerance for having sensitive information on that pc.

New technology is often met by the buying public in a herd mentality. The model T dominated sales up to nearly 50% of all autos until near existing market saturation then, with the technology having proved itself, many variations in style and manufacture began to appear. Windows is the model T of operating systems, but the early market saturation period has passed.

If I'm right the biggest immediate threat to MS is Apple. I see Apple taking 4-8% of Windows share over the next 3-5 years.

On the desktop Open Source can take considerable market share by way of a multitude of inroads but there are many barriers to overcome.

As for me, as I finish building my new boxes Windows will be phased out. MS has so deeply alienated me that I'll willingly put in time to help fill in the gaps in productivity my switch over will incurr.

Re:As It Unfolded

[nuckfuts (690967)]

If you paid for a full retail version of Windows the license allows you to move it from computer to computer. If you're running an OEM version the licence does not allow this. Up until the last year or so if you wanted to move an OEM version from one computer to another you could phone up and say that you're using it on the same computer but with a new motherboard. Then the OEM licence was changed to specifically disallow that kind of thing, presumably because there is no practical way to tell the difference between a new motherboard and a new computer. And it's not just motherboards that can cause Windows to require activation again. If you change enough components, such as adding RAM, a larger disk and a new video card all at the same time you might cross the line into what's considered a new computer.

All that being said, I've moved OEM versions between computers quite a number of times and I've yet to be refused activation key. It is necessary to speak to someone over the phone, however.

This is the same WGA that contradicts itself

[jrothwell97 (968062)]

On one of the computers at my church, the WGA Notifier came through MS Update. Fair-dos, I thought. But the church logs anonymous users in through the guest profile. You can see where this is going...

When I tried to use the guest profile, the system tray spouted an icon that said "you may not be running genuine Windows." I logged out, logged in as the system administrator, and asked why.

"The product key could not be read."

Well, do you think you'd LET guest users look at the product key so they can steal your copy of Windows, even if the PK isn't attached? But Microsoft contradicted itself, and I went home happy that I'd found a bug in Microsoft software. (I wasn't off the ceiling for several hours.)

Mercifully, an update was issued that allowed the program to check the PK in the Guest profile. But note the wording of the bubble:

"You MAY not be running Genuine Windows."

May? That, translated out of marketing-speak and into English, reads:

"Oh, dear. You might well have a legit copy of Windows but we believed our computer, so we assume you're a fake. So, we're going to display consistent nag screens until you cough up two hundred pounds to buy Windows."

Or throw the (beep) thing away and use Linux or a pen and paper.

NOT Necessary

[HermMunster (972336)]

First of all, it is going on everyone's computer, not just the pirated copies. It isn't just checking once, as it should. It is checking all the time.

This is the equivalent of calling you a thief every time it checks. Listen, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that when they check you today and you are legit and then they continue to check you repeatedly, they are accusing you of being a thief.

One time. The WGA notification is not a program I will allow on my computer. I purchased my 20+ licenses. I don't expect Microsoft to make me feel, as a small business owner, as if I am a thief.

I don't care about protecting Microsoft. I could care less about them and their profit. They pocket so much of that profit anyway instead of putting it back into development.

Microsoft's Vista is nothing more than XP with a new interface paradigm. Other than that new look they have cut all the meat out of the new features so as to make it a "no go" on the upgrade path. Everyone needs to understand that. Clearly VISTA is XP with a new desktop look. That's it. It isn't worth 200-400 dollars to upgrade.

So, if they make $3 billion in profit quarterly, wheres their loss at? Where's the loss of revenue to those pirates and why should I care less about Microsoft's bottom line.

Stop calling everyone a thief Microsoft.

Microsoft is playing a game with everyone. Over the past year they have been testing, probing, feeling to see how much violation of privacy we will take. Then they devise not just WGA but WGN. The WGN was tested in other countries first because they didn't want the outcry to be too loud from the US too quickly or it would turn the rest of the world off. So they slid their WGN into the EU and Asia in an effort to ensure it got done. Then they released it in the US under the guise that if the rest of the world allowed it and had no issue with it, the US should not either.

But of course, we value our privacy. We recognize that one company siphoning off $3 billion a quarter in profits really should be turning something back to the us. Listen, Bill Gate's donations to charity keep him from having to pay huge amounts of dollars to the government in taxes. This simply allows him to keep more of his money.

I've read the figures about how much his foundation gives, what their yearly budget is. Compared to $3 billion in profit every quarter $1 billion annually (from not just his donations, but others) is nearly nothing. Does he help the people in WA state where he enjoys laws that benefit his profit? From laws that give him tax breaks? Laws that provide him with a workforce that can be forced into 70-80 hours a week without compensation for each hour of work? He gives some money to libraries, schools, etc., but he does nothing for the community.

You can see this. Look at google earth and view the area around the location where his main offices are. There are no real parks, no special services, no assistance to public tranist. Nothing.

The bottom line is that WGN allows him to force purchases by those probably too poor to purchase his expensive OS already. XP costs alot of money for some. It is due to his monopoly that allows the OS to stay as highly priced as it is. Now he wants us all to upgrade to Vista which to anyone with a brain knows that it is just XP SP3. The security features could/should be incorporated into XP considering how much money we all paid for it and how irresponsible Microsoft has been toward the security of the OS, even after 2 years where they know that spyware/malware is so bad that even their head of the department for developing anti-spyware/malware tools tell us it is impossible to resolve all the problems and that we are just going to have to reformat every so often just to keep a safe secure system.

They'll justify Vista as a security fix when everyone realizes that Vista is just XP with a new interface and a huge increase in hardware requirements forced generally due to DRM implementations

Misdirection

[Sir Holo (531007)]

FTA: "No, Microsoft antipiracy technologies cannot and will not turn off your computer," said a spokeswoman with Waggener Edstrom, Microsoft's public relations firm.

Ah, but will it disable my installation of Windows? That's the part I care about.

She did not answer the question. She did not deny that WGA can diasble your installation of Windows. Why do we listen to PR flaks so uncritically?

Re:DUA

[Moocow660 (975091)]

Oh no... the people who already don't buy windows will hate Microsoft even more.

I'm sure they are trembling in fear.

Re:20% failure rate (from TFA)?

[Peyna (14792)]

Perhaps you failed statistics, but the proper conclusion from the statement that "80% of failures are due to unauthorized use of leaked or stolen volume license keys." is that the other 20% of failures are due to something else.

I would guess some percentage would be the unauthorized use of leaked or stolen non-volume license keys. The rest of that 20% could be anything or nothing.

I have no idea what conclusion you were trying to draw from that statement, but you made quite a jump in logic there. That figure gives us no indication as to what total percentage of users have problems with WGA.

NOT the usual spin!

[KingSkippus (799657)]

No, this spin is just... beyond. This is one of the funniest (and saddest) things I've ever read (emphasis mine):

Paul DeGroot, an analyst at Kirkland, Wash.-based Directions On Microsoft, said that while most consumers may find this sort of tracking by Microsoft intrusive, many corporations may actually welcome it.

When asked if companies that have installed more copies of Vista than they have purchased will find those copies de-activated, Microsoft said through its spokeswoman that companies "should think of it more like an application that tracks and protects their use of their Volume License keys and installations."

"Most corporations have no interest with getting away with anything at Microsoft's expense," he said. Indeed, corporations, especially those that have merged with another company or undergone a restructuring, often have a hard time keeping track of all the software they own. Most will "overbuy licenses because it's cheaper to do that then to designate staff people to actively manage them."

In other words, WGA isn't a means of cracking down on piracy, it's a useful tool that companies can use to save money! This message has obvously been brought to you by the same type of people who try to tell everyone that Digital Rights Management is a wonderful thing because it allows you to access content.

Jesus, are people really that naive? Why can't they just say what it is—a tool to keep people who haven't paid them lots of money from using their stuff. At least I could be on board with their motives. (Being paid for stuff I do is nice.) Am I the only one who is insulted not so much by WGA's existence as I am by how stupid they think we are in pitching it?