Slashdot Log In
WGA Under Vista SP1 Is Kinder and Nags More
Posted by
kdawson
on Sun Feb 10, 2008 02:15 PM
from the no-pretty-screen-background-for-you dept.
from the no-pretty-screen-background-for-you dept.
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 It seems that the draconian features present in Vista RTM have been replaced by nag screens and annoyances such as repeatedly changing the desktop background to black.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."
Related Stories
Submission: SP1 brings with it a softer, gentler, naggier WGA by Anonymous Coward
[+]
Vista Service Pack One Almost Here 286 comments
arogier writes "After numerous delays and an actual release reversal, the official release date for Vista service pack one has been set for Tuesday, March 18th on Windows Update and Microsoft Downloads. It will be released as an automatic update on April 18th. 'It's unclear so far how a February snafu will affect SP1's roll-out. Last month, after Microsoft pushed a pair of prerequisite patches to users, some reported that their machines refused to finish installing one of the fixes, then went into an endless series of reboots. Several days later, Microsoft pulled the update from automatic delivery, said it was working on a solution and promised it would "make the update available again shortly after we address the issue."' It would be a good time for those planning to adopt early to perform requisite backups and locate their restore media."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
nag screens and annoyances (Score:5, Funny)
Re:nag screens and annoyances (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:nag screens and annoyances (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:nag screens and annoyances (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:nag screens and annoyances (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:nag screens and annoyances (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
All I say is "Thank god for Reborn cards"
Re:nag screens and annoyances (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:nag screens and annoyances (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:nag screens and annoyances (Score:4, Insightful)
"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.
Parent
Re:nag screens and annoyances (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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!"
Parent
WGA is about profits, not low prices (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:nag screens and annoyances (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 mac
Re:nag screens and annoyances (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Expensive product? (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Parent
Re:Expensive product? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:Expensive product? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:nag screens and annoyances (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 ma
Re:nag screens and annoyances (Score:5, Interesting)
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!"
Parent
Shareware / Piracy (Score:3, Insightful)
It reminds me of the more shareware friendly days of yore.
Can I upgrade? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Can I upgrade? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
A kinder Writers Guild of America ? (Score:5, Funny)
My Advantage (Score:5, Funny)
Kinda like my parents (Score:5, Funny)
That's nice, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Besides, it only shows one of these factors, none of which are good:
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...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You May Be a Victim of Software Counterfeiting (Score:5, Funny)
Still a Toy. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
WGA (Score:3, Funny)
does this fix bootcamp + parallels? (Score:3, Interesting)
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
This will be just another of those popups that gets closed without a second thought.
What about activation? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Windows is a pig in a poke (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Excuse me, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
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:desktop to black? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:desktop to black? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.