People with pirated copies are going to gat nag screens, it looks like:
http://news.com.com/Microsoft+piracy...ht&tag=nl.e703
Printable View
People with pirated copies are going to gat nag screens, it looks like:
http://news.com.com/Microsoft+piracy...ht&tag=nl.e703
I saw the event log for an improperly obtained copy of server 2003 and it dropped a notice once every 24 hours in the log... something about authenticity and verification. It certainly lets the computer tech know something about what's going on when the company won't pay for their server OS.
why not just disable it altogether? This is what seems odd to me. All other anti-piracy moves have been fully disabling. What is the advantage in allowing limited functionality? Legal reasons? PR reasons?Quote:
certain operating system features will only work as long as it is a properly licensed copy.
Here are some more details:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/905474/en-us
I just installed the update and apparantly it(wgatray.exe) tries to connect to
genuine.microsoft.com. My firewall caught this while I was getting that along with another update for XP today.
This "attention getter" has been in my download notification box for 2 days but I have not allowed the download/install. I have read and read and then read a bit more and I still can't decide if I wanna d/i it. I know that I have a valid copy of XP Pro and have succumbed to the MS inquiry before. And, of course, am validated by MS. Why this additional nuisance?
Here is a c/p of someone's note about this:
I have Windows XP Pro 64 at home with automatic updates turned off. When I manually visited the Windows Update site and Selected the "Custom" option I saw a list of available updates, including the new WGA tool. I simply unselected it and proceeded to download/install the remaining updates.
I wonder if there is any truth in what this person says!!
Wish I knew how to enter this subject as a poll but I don't know how to do that. You know; install or not install.
If you are legit, then install it. Many MS downloads are only available after you have validated, and after you've done it once it's done for good - you don't have to keep on validating. It really isn't a lot of hassle at all, I've found the whole thing painless anyway.
Thanks for your response Nick. I don't really mind installing and playing their game. I could not be legal if MS had not validated my XP Pro. I think I have had to prove that fact 2-3 times already before I was allowed some downloads and, of course, at validation time. MS has the know how, it would seem, to be able to extract from their files that I am validated. I am not blaming them for protecting their interest and livelihood. I suppose, more than anything, I feel offended by MS for questioning my honesty. Their action in this regard is, I feel, an affront to all honest people.
BTW, you began your response with these words: If you are legit, then install it.
Let me say that I will install it but before doing so, I thought I would just raise a simple question seeking dialog from others on our board. I'll wait to see if more thoughts and input are forthcoming.
I personally understand and approve all the Microsoft's anti-piracy efforts. That is no different than a company enforcing it's patentnt rights. I also had no problems with validation - had to do it twice because I had to return the system to factory condition between validations (problems not associated with validation). No problems either time.
Having said all this I understand buff's annoyance at being assumed dishonest. MS should have preceded the excercise with better PR, making it more a voluntary excercise, perhaps with some rewards thrown in - prizes, discounts, etc. Many years ago I refused to use Lotus 1-2-3 Spreadsheet, industry leader at the time, because they insisted that after you installed a licenced, registered copy on your HD you still had to boot up from the floppy. Next came Quattro at one third the price, followed by Excel, and the rest is history. How many of our forum's members even heard of Lotus or Lotus 1-2-3?.
Cut my teeth on Lotus 1-2-3 with my first IBM/PC back in the early 80's. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by x71s8zTN
In fairness to MS, they kind of did -- things like what's currently on http://catalog.microsoft.com/genuine...s/default.aspx. The problem is that most people don't care about any of that sort of stuff unless they're forced to.Quote:
Originally Posted by x71s8zTN
Similar example: We recently deployed WSUS at work to patch PCs, and left it so the patches were downloaded automatically but the user could choose when to install them. The UI is much the same as Automatic Updates -- a yellow shield on the taskbar nags you every so often, and you click to install.
I've been reminding people about it periodically with emails, and calling those who get slack. Just for fun we didn't do that after the last patch release -- over 2/3 of our machines are still unpatched a month later.
The end result is simple -- real soon now, the patches will install themselves automatically. Then people will notice it, and complain about their machines rebooting automatically. :)
Had to convince myself that I wanted to and should install the WGA that MS is forcing us to do to help them and perhaps the users in the long run. Knew what the answer would be on both our home machines. Another positive however, we never know what might happen with MS downloads and installs :D I believe this makes the third time that I have given MS an answer. Maybe 3 is the magical number.
Read somewhere tonight that the "targeted" computers were 'probably' those that have the AU feature setup.
Also, the "carrot" for us behaving as MS dictates is to have the ability to download IE7 and the MS virus software (still beta??). Neither of these are a plus for me; at this point. Maybe in time to come.
Attention: Admins
You may wish to clarify the VirtualDr. policies on product authentication. For example, we are evidently allowed to discuss not installing the 'update', but if there is a different workaround later, are we able to discuss it? If someone posts here with the message about piracy should we assume that it is a pirated copy or can we assume that MS might be having a problem with the authentication program? Are we going to be forced to tell everyone to 'visit whatever.microsoft.com for the solution' or what?
Honestly, since it's likely to be the hot topic in the XP forums for the next six months, it might make sense to put a sticky up just about authentication problems. Would be a good way to get google to send us some more patients.
Q: What are the details of the genuine Windows offer?
To help customers who unknowingly purchased a counterfeit version of Windows XP, Microsoft has created two genuine Windows offers for those who qualify:
Complimentary offer: Microsoft will make a complimentary copy of Windows XP available to customers who have been sold counterfeit Windows. Customers will be required to submit a proof of purchase, the counterfeit CD, and a counterfeit report with details of their purchase. Only high-quality counterfeit Windows will qualify for the complimentary offer.
Electronic License Key Offer: Microsoft will offer an alternative for customers who find out via the WGA validation process that they are not running genuine Windows, but do not qualify for, or choose not to take advantage of, the complimentary offer. These customers will be able to license a Windows Genuine Advantage Kit for Windows XP online for a price of $99 for Windows XP Home edition or $149 for Windows XP Professional. The Windows Genuine Advantage Kit for Windows XP will include a new 25-character Product Key and a Windows Product Key Update tool that will allow customers to convert their counterfeit copy to genuine Windows XP electronically.
Get genuine: How can I take advantage of the Microsoft genuine Windows offer?
[http://www.microsoft.com/genuine/dow...Question5Label
Wow, complimentary! That's awesome. Still doesn't help most of the dudes that get suckered on eBay, but it's a very nice gesture.
The sad thing about all this is the reality that Microsqish sells a misfunctioning product, changes it every few years and keeps the cost disporportionatly high for it's product.
I was personaly content with 98se but most of the new editing software I run needs XP. And no doubt it will soon need the new version to keep up. If a copy of XP was set at 50 $ american( a much more realistic price for what you get) they would not have the problem they have with bad copies all over the place.
That said , some real competition might help alieveate the "giant" syndrom Micro slush exhibits .
Just my opinion (of course)
KennJ
50 Million lines of code for $50 bucks?
What are you going to do after you've starved all the programmers to death?
Windows 95 had 15 million lines of code.
Windows 98 has 18 million lines of code.
Windows XP has 35 million lines of code.
Windows Vista has 50 million lines of code, (40 percent larger than Windows XP).
I've always felt that Windows is fairly reasonably priced, as is most MS software with the exception of Office. Now Adobe software, that is overpriced. There is no excuse for what they charge for Photoshop or Acrobat.
I can live with the price of Windows (lets wait and see though how much Vista will cost), but Office kills me. There is no justification for spending so much money on Office. It seems weird to me that Office is more expensive than the OS in the first place.
When is MS really gonna get some guts and start disabling parts of the OS of illegal copies? IMO, they should release a patch that turns certain things off. Like the printing, or the HTTP protocol. That would be fun. MS would get slapped with a whole bunch of lawsuits, but it would definitely be fun (not to mention that I would make a heck of a lot of money out of that).
For those of you who buy lots of software, get a student discount. I have saved thousands on software with my student ID. In many cases it would be cheaper to pay $200 for a 1-credit course at a community college than to pay full price for the software, particularly Adobe.
Don't kid yourself about piracy going down if Widows was cheaper. There are script kiddies that wouldn't pay $5 for Windows but have illegal VLK copies of every OS MS has ever released. The bulk of piracy is people who could afford the software.
I think what should change is the way the 'used' market is handled. The majority of Windows XP installations will just 'disappear' in the next 10 years. They will be replaced. Users might upgrade, which would prevent them from selling XP, but if they don't upgrade, what happens to that particular license? It goes nowhere. Consumers should set up a legal way for those licenses to be resold. The day Vista is released, there will be more copies of XP being released than obtained. In a truly free market that should push the price down FAST. But MS will still sell copies of WinXP for years, at full price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpywareDr
One has to wonder though how much of this code is for copy protection and antipiracy rather than for its initial conception as an operating system.
Has there been any word yet as to how Vista will be protected? I hope that MS come up with something a bit more complicated than they did with XP.
A new release game might cost you $100 bucks and in 6 months time it's dwon to $50 and another 6 months it's in the bargain bin for $20.
3 years down the track and it's $10 or less.
So why don't all these other softwares drop in price ?
Also if you can buy it cheap as student, that makes you wonder about the real cost of making the product if they can cut it so much for students ?
Student prices - that was the only erason I had kids.........just kidding, but one is in school now so......
Nix, I agree with that. Especially the part about student prices. In fact, I myself bought Office 2003 Pro for $20. My brothers company (the biggest ISP in Israel) offered Office to its workers for that price as part of a deal they have with MS. Lots of my customers who are teachers get Windows XP + Office 2003 Pro for about $25 through the education ministry, again as part of a deal with MS. Really makes you wonder.
Now that Vista is slated to be released in early 2007, why not bring down the price for XP which will be old software? As it stands now, Windows 98 is more expensive to buy than XP!? One could argue that Windows 98 has kept its market value because it offers something that XP doesn't, DOS. Many companies stick with 98 because DOS offers them the ability to work with old legacy programs. But XP won't have that advantage over Vista.
When you purchase a new Windows PC computer with the latest operating system, this is an OEM OS, which is installed by the manufacturer or assembler of your new computer. The OEM EULA states that an OEM copy of the OS can not be resold, so when you get ready to give away or sell the computer that you have just purchased, you are required to wipe the hard drive of the OS.
If you sell a computer with its OEM version of the OS, then you are participating in piracy, whether you realize it or not.
I agree about the Adobe products being overpriced. But the prices on Microsoft products are reasonable in my opinion.
There are some people, who are always looking for a free lunch and if that is there objective, then it really doesn't matter how cheap the price is, they do not want to pay the price. Having encountered this personality type on a number of occasions, I developed the following saying. "There are some people, that if you told them that this piece of land was free, they would want 20% off."
I have also encountered the free lunch type, which orders software via spammers for $10 or $20 and then complains loudly and longly that they haven't received their software. When I have told them that they have been scammed and that they are never going to get any software, they kept asking me over and over, "But what do I need to do to get my software... ?"
As they say, there are idiots and then there are stupid idiots.
I too have bought software by registering for a college course. However, some of the software that you purchase with an educational discount may be cripple ware, if you decide to use it for commercial purposes. Neither Microsoft nor Adobe do this but other vendors do, so it is wise to find out before you complete your purchase. Typically, the instructors, who teach how to use specific software will know, if there are any issues pertaining to your using the software as a student and then later on a for profit basis for business purposes.
Cheers,
Linda
That's not quite what it says. The relevant bit of the OEM EULA is this:Quote:
Originally Posted by LindaHewitt
As long as it's staying with the computer and you give away all the supporting materials, it's transferrable to the new owner.Quote:
1.2 Software as a Component of the Computer - Transfer. THIS LICENSE MAY NOT BE SHARED, TRANSFERRED TO OR USED CONCURRENTLY ON DIFFERENT COMPUTERS. The Software is licensed with the Computer as a single integrated product and may only be used with the Computer. If the Software is not accompanied by a Computer, you may not use the Software. You may permanently transfer all of your rights under this EULA only as part of a permanent sale or transfer of the Computer, provided you retain no copies, if you transfer the Software (including all component parts, the media, any upgrades, this EULA and the COA), and the recipient agrees to the terms of this EULA. If the Software is an upgrade, any transfer must also include all prior versions of the Software.
Tuttle,
Have the requirements in the OEM EULA changed in the last couple of years?
I have been involved in a community service computer refurbishing project, which uses W98 SE. When companies or individuals donate computers, according to Microsoft, the OEM operating systems could not be used even if they were W98 SE. As a result, Microsoft set up the MAR program (Microsoft Authorized Refurbisher) where they will sell authenic copies of either W98 or W2K for $5 each.
Did the OEM EULA change as a result of either the US anti-trust lawsuit or the EU anti-trust lawsuit?
Edit:
I went to the system builder website below and found the following information.
My interpretation of these rules is that if you can NOT provide the software media (including original media if the this OS is an upgrade), certificate of authenticity, then you cannot transfer this OEM OS.Quote:
Questions and answers specific to system builders
https://oem.microsoft.com/worldwide/514341.asp
Can my customers transfer or sell their OEM software licenses?
A. After an OEM software license has been installed on a PC, the license may not be installed on or transferred to another PC. However, the entire PC may be transferred to another end user along with the software license rights. When transferring the PC to the new end user the software media, manuals (if applicable) and certificate of authenticity label must be included. It is also advisable to include the original purchase invoice or receipt. The original end user cannot keep any copies of the software.
I would also think that it would be very prudent to have a signed agreement between the original owner and the new owner, which is signed by both. This way if there is ever any question, then you as the original owner can prove that you transferred everything. Likewise as the new owner, you can prove that you are the new owner.
Pertaining to computer refurbishing projects, which require a new MAR OS, the probable reason is that when the computer is donated, the donor cannot provide the original software media, certificate of authenticity, let alone purchase invoice or receipt.
Well, I certainly learned a bit more about the Microsoft rules.
Cheers,
Linda
Not in any way that's meaningful to end users. The only recent change I can think of affects what system builders are allowed to supply OEM licenses with -- there was an attempt to close the loophole that let you legally sell an OEM copy of windows together with something like an IDE cable.Quote:
Originally Posted by LindaHewitt
Isn't the COA often the hologram sticker included on the case of most OEM machines? Or is that just part of the COA?
Also, couldn't it be argued that the transfer of ownership is included in fair-use? Or at least that MS wouldn't get involved in a lawsuit against schools or other nonprofits where MS had already recieved money for the software once?
Yeah sounds like b*ll*x to me.
It would be a bit like saying you can't sell your car without pulling the engine out first.
These days it is. Once upon a time it was the front cover of the manual, or a separate bit of paper.Quote:
Originally Posted by ProfessorU
Most nonprofits I know can't afford that sort of risk. :)Quote:
Also, couldn't it be argued that the transfer of ownership is included in fair-use? Or at least that MS wouldn't get involved in a lawsuit against schools or other nonprofits where MS had already recieved money for the software once?