Vista's EULA Product Activation Worries
Thundercleets
Mark Rasch, 2006-11-20
>From Security Focus
The EULA ominously warns that "Before you activate, you have the
right to use the version of the software installed during the
installation process. Your right to use the software after the time
specified in the installation process is limited unless it is
activated. This is to prevent its unlicensed use. You will not be able
to continue using the software after that time if you do not activate
it. " What does this mean? Essentially, if you buy a license to the
software from a reputable dealer, but choose not to transmit
information to Microsoft, you forfeit your ability to use the licensed
software.
link: http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423/2
Windows users getting bent for Bill in Vista as before...
Edwin
That's no different than the current XP EULA. If people didn't share
license codes, the activation wouldn't be necessary.
> Windows users getting bent for Bill in Vista as before...
How do you figure? Activation is a simple, painless procedure that
takes nothing away from the owner.
Josh McKee
"Thundercleets" <thunde...@yahoo.com> wrote:
While I disagree with Product Activation (that's one of the primary
reasons I never moved to Windows XP from Windows 2000) this is nothing
more than fear mongering. Product Activation essentially works like
Windows XP does today. This guy appears to be clueless. Take this
question for example:
"The license is also silent on what happens after you fail to activate
the product. Is there a mechanism for you to at least open the product
to allow you to activate it, or do you get a Blue Screen of Death?"
Yeah...like Microsoft is going to make it blue screen. Doesn't this guy
know that the blue screen was replaced with a red one? But to answer his
question:
"Is there a mechanism for you to at least open the product to allow you
to activate it.."
Yes...after the 30 day activation grace period Vista will operate in
reduced functionality mode. The purpose of which is to permit you to
activate it. If this guy doesn't know this I can't consider what he
writes credible.
Josh
Steve de Mena
> Vista's EULA Product Activation Worries
> Mark Rasch, 2006-11-20
>
>>From Security Focus
>
> The EULA ominously warns that "Before you activate, you have the
> right to use the version of the software installed during the
> installation process. Your right to use the software after the time
> specified in the installation process is limited unless it is
> activated. This is to prevent its unlicensed use. You will not be able
> to continue using the software after that time if you do not activate
> it. " What does this mean? Essentially, if you buy a license to the
> software from a reputable dealer, but choose not to transmit
> information to Microsoft, you forfeit your ability to use the licensed
> software.
Yes, just like any other software (i.e. Adobe
products) that require activation.
Steve
Snit
1164146312.9...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com on 11/21/06 2:58 PM:
You buy your copy of Windows and you *still* have to ask MS's permission to
use it.
I understand why they do such things to their users, but I still find it
bothersome and absurd. It is like selling a car without the keys and hoping
the dealership will toss those in for free.
--
€ A partial subset is not synonymous with the whole
€ A person's actions speak more about him than what others say
€ Apple doesn't provide as many options as the rest of the PC industry
Snit
1164146969.7...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com on 11/21/06 3:09 PM:
>
> Thundercleets wrote:
>> Vista's EULA Product Activation Worries
>> Mark Rasch, 2006-11-20
>>
>>> From Security Focus
>>
>> The EULA ominously warns that "Before you activate, you have the
>> right to use the version of the software installed during the
>> installation process. Your right to use the software after the time
>> specified in the installation process is limited unless it is
>> activated. This is to prevent its unlicensed use. You will not be able
>> to continue using the software after that time if you do not activate
>> it. " What does this mean? Essentially, if you buy a license to the
>> software from a reputable dealer, but choose not to transmit
>> information to Microsoft, you forfeit your ability to use the licensed
>> software.
>>
>> link: http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423/2
>
> That's no different than the current XP EULA. If people didn't share
> license codes, the activation wouldn't be necessary.
While I understand why MS does what they do here, do not pretend it is
"necessary". That is a lie.
>> Windows users getting bent for Bill in Vista as before...
>
> How do you figure? Activation is a simple, painless procedure that
> takes nothing away from the owner.
You buy Windows and still have to ask permission to use it. That is a
problem, even if that permission is almost always given.
--
€ There is no known malware that attacks OS X in the wild
€ There are two general types of PCs: Macs and PCs (odd naming conventions!)
€ Mac OS X 10.x.x is a version of Mac OS
Mr. Blonde
Snit wrote:
> I understand why they do such things to their users, but I still find it
> bothersome and absurd. It is like selling a car without the keys and hoping
> the dealership will toss those in for free.
It's more like them selling you a car with the keys but having the
power to disable your engine, or your power windows, or your heated
seats, if you don't call them up and supply them with the proper
activation code.
The more bothersome aspect of this article is that Vista checks your
activation code on an ongoing, periodic basis, even after you've gone
through your initial verification check. You are always tethered to
Redmond with an electronic leash. Creepy.
Snit
1164159924.2...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com on 11/21/06 6:45 PM:
What happens on the off, off chance that MS goes out of business?
Peter Hayes
>
> Thundercleets wrote:
>> Vista's EULA Product Activation Worries
>> Mark Rasch, 2006-11-20
>>
>> >From Security Focus
>>
>> The EULA ominously warns that "Before you activate, you have the
>> right to use the version of the software installed during the
>> installation process. Your right to use the software after the time
>> specified in the installation process is limited unless it is
>> activated. This is to prevent its unlicensed use. You will not be
>> able to continue using the software after that time if you do not
>> activate it. " What does this mean? Essentially, if you buy a license
>> to the software from a reputable dealer, but choose not to transmit
>> information to Microsoft, you forfeit your ability to use the
>> licensed software.
>>
>> link: http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423/2
>
> That's no different than the current XP EULA. If people didn't
> share license codes, the activation wouldn't be necessary.
Evidently you didn't read the article. "You see, even after you activate
the software it will, according to the EULA, "from time to time validate
the software, update or require download of the validation feature of
the software.? It will once again ?send information about the . . .
version and product key of the software, and the Internet protocol
address of the device.""
>> Windows users getting bent for Bill in Vista as before...
>
> How do you figure? Activation is a simple, painless procedure that
> takes nothing away from the owner.
It's the repeating activations with the possibility of erroneous failure
that's the problem.
Your surgeon has begun your heart replacement procedure and Microsoft
decides it's time for your life support machine to phone home for a
validation check.
Your nuclear reactor is winding out the graphite rods because of
increased demand and Microsoft decides it's time for the controller to
phone home for a validation check.
No-one will use Vista in anything remotely mission critical because of
the potential for massive third party lawsuits.
--
Peter
Steve de Mena
Doesn't Apple's EULA for OS X specifically mention
it is not intended for use in mission critical
applications such as the ones you cite?
Isn't it more likely the hard drive would crash
then something going wrong with the "activation
process" (whatever that is)?
Steve
Peter Hayes
> Peter Hayes wrote:
>>
>> It's the repeating activations with the possibility of erroneous
>> failure that's the problem.
>>
>> Your surgeon has begun your heart
>> replacement procedure and Microsoft decides it's time for your life
>> support machine to phone home for a validation check.
>>
>> Your nuclear reactor is winding out the graphite rods because of
>> increased demand
>> and Microsoft decides it's time for the controller to phone home for
>> a validation check.
>>
>> No-one will use Vista in anything remotely
>> mission critical because of the potential for massive third party
>> lawsuits.
>
> Doesn't Apple's EULA for OS X specifically mention
> it is not intended for use in mission critical
> applications such as the ones you cite?
I believe so. A quick trawl through Vista's EULA doesn't show up
anything similar.
> Isn't it more likely the hard drive would crash
> then something going wrong with the "activation
> process" (whatever that is)?
It would depend how often Vista phones home. "From time to time" is
typically vague. Is it short enough to keep users on their toes or long
enough so some poor sucker gets caught because he's got six devices
connected to his machine?
--
Peter
Edwin
Peter Hayes wrote:
> In <1164146969.7...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> Edwin wrote:
> >
> > Thundercleets wrote:
> >> Vista's EULA Product Activation Worries
> >> Mark Rasch, 2006-11-20
> >>
> >> >From Security Focus
> >>
> >> The EULA ominously warns that "Before you activate, you have the
> >> right to use the version of the software installed during the
> >> installation process. Your right to use the software after the time
> >> specified in the installation process is limited unless it is
> >> activated. This is to prevent its unlicensed use. You will not be
> >> able to continue using the software after that time if you do not
> >> activate it. " What does this mean? Essentially, if you buy a license
> >> to the software from a reputable dealer, but choose not to transmit
> >> information to Microsoft, you forfeit your ability to use the
> >> licensed software.
> >>
> >> link: http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423/2
> >
> > That's no different than the current XP EULA. If people didn't
> > share license codes, the activation wouldn't be necessary.
>
> Evidently you didn't read the article.
You're wrong... as usual.
> "You see, even after you activate
> the software it will, according to the EULA, "from time to time validate
> the software, update or require download of the validation feature of
> the software.? It will once again ?send information about the . . .
> version and product key of the software, and the Internet protocol
> address of the device.""
As I said, just like Windows XP. And it's no worry to anybody who has
legal copies of Windows.
> >> Windows users getting bent for Bill in Vista as before...
> >
> > How do you figure? Activation is a simple, painless procedure that
> > takes nothing away from the owner.
>
> It's the repeating activations with the possibility of erroneous failure
> that's the problem.
Nice FUD, but doesn't your arse hurt after pulling out that whopper?
> Your surgeon has begun your heart replacement procedure and Microsoft
> decides it's time for your life support machine to phone home for a
> validation check.
Those type of machines don't run on Windows, and even if they did, they
would make provisions for such a thing in advance.
> Your nuclear reactor is winding out the graphite rods because of
> increased demand and Microsoft decides it's time for the controller to
> phone home for a validation check.
You don't live in anything remotely resembling the real world, do you?
I thought not.
> No-one will use Vista in anything remotely mission critical because of
> the potential for massive third party lawsuits.
You seem to think MS made it to the top by running nuclear reactors and
life support machines. Major clue for you: Windows is the number one
desktop computer OS. Windows has always carried the disclaimer it's
not for the type of applications you're worried about. Those things
are typically run by Unix or some proprietary RTOS.
Steve de Mena
What does having "six devices connected to his
machine" have anything to do with this?
Steve
Thundercleets
Does anyone use Windows for anything serious now?
Thundercleets
Speaking of which,
M$ only supports retail on white box unless the seller of same said is
also a recognized (and paid up) M$ OEM which is unlikely in the case of
a white box.
So if you are running OEM licensed Windows on a white box and you do
not have a sticker on your white box than you are illegal and you need
to by a retail copy.
Unlike XP at least for now, Vista will enforce a single re-activation
after a failure in software. Then you need to buy a new copy.
> > >> Windows users getting bent for Bill in Vista as before...
> > >
> > > How do you figure? Activation is a simple, painless procedure that
> > > takes nothing away from the owner.
Except your privacy.
and
The Vista and the EULAs that are being forced down with critical flaw
patches will be end up being the same if they are not already. So with
that you give M$ the ability to shut down your Windows install and deny
access to your original works.
If they make a mistake you cannot sue for more than the cost of the
Windows usage license and you would still have to buy a second copy to
even see your data.
Looks like a lease model to me.
> > It's the repeating activations with the possibility of erroneous failure
> > that's the problem.
>
> Nice FUD, but doesn't your arse hurt after pulling out that whopper?
>
> > Your surgeon has begun your heart replacement procedure and Microsoft
> > decides it's time for your life support machine to phone home for a
> > validation check.
>
> Those type of machines don't run on Windows, and even if they did, they
> would make provisions for such a thing in advance.
>
> > Your nuclear reactor is winding out the graphite rods because of
> > increased demand and Microsoft decides it's time for the controller to
> > phone home for a validation check.
>
> You don't live in anything remotely resembling the real world, do you?
> I thought not.
>
> > No-one will use Vista in anything remotely mission critical because of
> > the potential for massive third party lawsuits.
>
> You seem to think MS made it to the top by running nuclear reactors and
> life support machines. Major clue for you: Windows is the number one
> desktop computer OS. Windows has always carried the disclaimer it's
> not for the type of applications you're worried about. Those things
> are typically run by Unix or some proprietary RTOS.
Usually that would be true because who in their right mind would run
Windows for anything but games.
You might be surprised on how Ballmer, Bill & Co. spend their backdoor
money. The Navy uses Windows on some of their newer missle destroyers
even though during testing the dedicated systems on Windows had to be
rebooted several times a day versus BSD and other *nix platforms.
Peter Hayes
From the Vista EULA,
< http://download.microsoft.com/documents/useterms/Windows%20Vista_
Ultimate_English_36d0fe99-75e4-4875-8153-889cf5105718.pdf>
"ADDITIONAL LICENSE TERMS. The following additional license terms apply
to Microsoft Windows
Vista Home Basic.
1. DEVICE CONNECTIONS. You may allow up to 5 other devices to access
the software installed on
the licensed device to use File Services, Print Services, Internet
Information Services and Internet
Connection Sharing and Telephony Services."
So the poor dweeb that has six connections on his Home Basic machine
gets caught by Microsoft's random check and has to
pony up $$$ for Home Premium - unles he's got over 10 connections when
he has to pay $$$$$ for Ultimate.
--
Peter
Peter Hayes
>> protocol address of the device.""
>
> As I said, just like Windows XP.
It's NOT "just like Windows XP". It checks up "from time to time" to
"validate the software". XP validates once and that's it. I thought
you'd have known that...
> And it's no worry to anybody who has legal copies of Windows.
It does if it erroneously decides that the software is "pirated".
>> >> Windows users getting bent for Bill in Vista as before...
>> >
>> > How do you figure? Activation is a simple, painless procedure
>> > that
>> > takes nothing away from the owner.
>>
>> It's the repeating activations with the possibility of erroneous
>> failure that's the problem.
>
> Nice FUD, but doesn't your arse hurt after pulling out that whopper?
What whopper?
>> Your surgeon has begun your heart replacement procedure and Microsoft
>> decides it's time for your life support machine to phone home for a
>> validation check.
> Those type of machines don't run on Windows, and even if they did,
> they would make provisions for such a thing in advance.
>
>> Your nuclear reactor is winding out the graphite rods because of
>> increased demand and Microsoft decides it's time for the controller
>> to phone home for a validation check.
>
> You don't live in anything remotely resembling the real world, do you?
> I thought not.
>
>> No-one will use Vista in anything remotely mission critical because
>> of the potential for massive third party lawsuits.
>
> You seem to think MS made it to the top by running nuclear reactors
> and life support machines. Major clue for you: Windows is the
> number one desktop computer OS.
I know, it's just a debating technique to illustrate the dangers of
running Vista if downtime costs your customers money.
> Windows has always carried the
> disclaimer it's not for the type of applications you're worried about.
I don't see any such disclaimer in the Vista EULA.
> Those things are typically run by Unix or some proprietary RTOS.
Indeed.
--
Peter
Snit
20061122184...@news.individual.net on 11/22/06 11:47 AM:
>> As I said, just like Windows XP.
>
> It's NOT "just like Windows XP". It checks up "from time to time" to
> "validate the software". XP validates once and that's it. I thought
> you'd have known that...
>
>> And it's no worry to anybody who has legal copies of Windows.
>
> It does if it erroneously decides that the software is "pirated".
With XP, even after you buy the software, you have to ask permission to use
it. If Microsoft grants you permission, you are, for the most part, free
and clear.
With Vista, it seems, you have to repeatedly play "Mother may I" and hope
Microsoft continues to grant permission.
What happens on the off chance Microsoft were to go out of business? Once
your current "lease" is used up, your computer would be crippled by the lack
of a working OS.
I get why MS feels the need to do this, but I prefer an OS that does not do
this.
--
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
€ OS X users are at far less risk of malware then are XP users
€ Photoshop is an image editing application
Edwin
XP validates for every upgrade or update. Unlike you, I actually use
Windows XP and Vista. All you have is what you misinterpret from
what you read.
> > And it's no worry to anybody who has legal copies of Windows.
>
> It does if it erroneously decides that the software is "pirated".
Document cases of such "erroneous" decisions.
> >> >> Windows users getting bent for Bill in Vista as before...
> >> >
> >> > How do you figure? Activation is a simple, painless procedure
> >> > that
> >> > takes nothing away from the owner.
> >>
> >> It's the repeating activations with the possibility of erroneous
> >> failure that's the problem.
> >
> > Nice FUD, but doesn't your arse hurt after pulling out that whopper?
>
> What whopper?
"Erroneous failure."
> >> Your surgeon has begun your heart replacement procedure and Microsoft
> >> decides it's time for your life support machine to phone home for a
> >> validation check.
>
> > Those type of machines don't run on Windows, and even if they did,
> > they would make provisions for such a thing in advance.
> >
> >> Your nuclear reactor is winding out the graphite rods because of
> >> increased demand and Microsoft decides it's time for the controller
> >> to phone home for a validation check.
> >
> > You don't live in anything remotely resembling the real world, do you?
> > I thought not.
> >
> >> No-one will use Vista in anything remotely mission critical because
> >> of the potential for massive third party lawsuits.
> >
> > You seem to think MS made it to the top by running nuclear reactors
> > and life support machines. Major clue for you: Windows is the
> > number one desktop computer OS.
>
> I know, it's just a debating technique to illustrate the dangers of
> running Vista if downtime costs your customers money.
That's a very poor debating technique you have, to single out
applications Windows isn't used for, and then dream up imaginary
failures to knock those applications down.
> > Windows has always carried the
> > disclaimer it's not for the type of applications you're worried about.
>
> I don't see any such disclaimer in the Vista EULA.
Where did you get the Vista EULA?
> > Those things are typically run by Unix or some proprietary RTOS.
>
> Indeed.
Then you ought to be feeling very foolish for what you posted to this
thread.
ZnU
Peter Hayes <noti...@btinternet.com> wrote:
I'd assume the operating system just wouldn't let you have more than 5
connections.
--
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
-- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005
Snit
>> I don't see any such disclaimer in the Vista EULA.
>
> Where did you get the Vista EULA?
http://download.microsoft.com/documents/useterms/Windows%20Vista_Ultimate_En
glish_36d0fe99-75e4-4875-8153-889cf5105718.pdf
It is publicly available, you silly troll. Learn to use and trust Google...
instead of claiming *nobody* believes it, as you did just a few minutes ago.
--
€ Deleting from a *Save* dialog is not a sign of well done design
€ A personal computer without an OS is crippled by that lacking
Steve de Mena
There is no random check for connections. Either
it is forced by software (no more than 5 allowed;
a 6th is denied) or you are on a honor system.
(By connected devices I thought you meant like a
USB printer, a mouse, a scanner, etc.)
Steve
Peter Hayes
>
> I'd assume the operating system just wouldn't let you have more than 5
> connections.
You could well be right. Maybe Eddie can advise us. If so, Microsoft
have missed an opportunity for additional sales.
--
Peter
Mr. Blonde
Edwin wrote:
> > It does if it erroneously decides that the software is "pirated".
>
> Document cases of such "erroneous" decisions.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/914232
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/823761
http://www.pcreview.co.uk/forums/thread-629246.php
http://www.experts-exchange.com/Operating_Systems/WinXP/Q_21073622.html
That's just a small sample, too.
Edwin
Every one of them fail to supply the requested documentation. Peter
was talking about a system shutting down because it fails to validate
when it goes out for its periodic check of the validation. That
means its initial validation worked, and none of your examples apply to
what he was asked to produce. Your examples are all of initial
validation failing.
Peter Hayes
>
> Peter Hayes wrote:
>> In <1164210878.1...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Edwin
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Peter Hayes wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "You see, even after you activate
>> >> the software it will, according to the EULA, "from time to time
>> >> validate the software, update or require download of the
>> >> validation feature of the software. It will once again send
>> >> information about the . . . version and product key of the
>> >> software, and the Internet protocol address of the device.""
>> >
>> > As I said, just like Windows XP.
>>
>> It's NOT "just like Windows XP". It checks up "from time to time" to
>> "validate the software". XP validates once and that's it. I thought
>> you'd have known that...
>
> XP validates for every upgrade or update. Unlike you, I actually
> use Windows XP and Vista. All you have is what you misinterpret
> from what you read.
The difference is that the XP user goes online for updates, but
according to Vista's EULA it re-validates even if the machine isn't
connected to any network. Presumably they would have to phone Microsoft
for stand alone machines. Just have your mobile phone handy if you've
got your Dell halfway up a mountain when Vista decides a check up is due.
Just wait until some corporate bigwig gets the re-validation order in
the middle of a high level presentation. Vista will be off the corporate
machines faster than you can fire the CIO.
>> > And it's no worry to anybody who has legal copies of Windows.
>>
>> It does if it erroneously decides that the software is "pirated".
>
> Document cases of such "erroneous" decisions.
Vista isn't even out yet so it's difficult to understand how there can
be cases to document.
>> >> >> Windows users getting bent for Bill in Vista as before...
>> >> >
>> >> > How do you figure? Activation is a simple, painless
>> >> > procedure that
>> >> > takes nothing away from the owner.
>> >>
>> >> It's the repeating activations with the possibility of erroneous
>> >> failure that's the problem.
>> >
>> > Nice FUD, but doesn't your arse hurt after pulling out that whopper?
>>
>> What whopper?
>
> "Erroneous failure."
?
>> > Windows has always carried the
>> > disclaimer it's not for the type of applications you're worried
>> > about.
>>
>> I don't see any such disclaimer in the Vista EULA.
>
> Where did you get the Vista EULA?
<http://download.microsoft.com/documents/useterms/Windows%20Vista_
Ultimate_English_36d0fe99-75e4-4875-8153-889cf5105718.pdf>
--
Peter
Mr. Blonde
Edwin wrote:
> Every one of them fail to supply the requested documentation. Peter
> was talking about a system shutting down because it fails to validate
> when it goes out for its periodic check of the validation.
You're asking for cases of Vista's periodic activation check failing,
even though Vista isn't released and is only being used by a small
number of people?
Regardless, XP's intial activation check can fail for a wide variety of
reasons. It stands to reason that Vista's periodic activation check,
which most likely uses a similar validation scheme, could fail for the
same reasons. Hell, what happens if your ISP takes a dump at the same
time Microsoft decides to check your computer's bus pass? You're S.O.L.
Snit
The fact you have to repeatedly ask permission to use your OS is offensive.
MS has control, remotely, of when or if your machine becomes crippled. That
is not something I will be happy with. I will only be running Vista via
Parallels, so even if Vista is crippled by a faulty "activation" check most
of what I do will not be hurt.
--
€ Teaching is a "real job"
€ The path "~/users/username/library/widget" is not common on any OS
€ The term "all widgets" does not specify a specific subgroup of widgets
Steve de Mena
> In <1164222020....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Edwin wrote:
>> Peter Hayes wrote:
>>> In <1164210878.1...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Edwin
>>> wrote:
>>>> Peter Hayes wrote:
>>>>> "You see, even after you activate
>>>>> the software it will, according to the EULA, "from time to time
>>>>> validate the software, update or require download of the
>>>>> validation feature of the software. It will once again send
>>>>> information about the . . . version and product key of the
>>>>> software, and the Internet protocol address of the device.""
>>>> As I said, just like Windows XP.
>>> It's NOT "just like Windows XP". It checks up "from time to time" to
>>> "validate the software". XP validates once and that's it. I thought
>>> you'd have known that...
>> XP validates for every upgrade or update. Unlike you, I actually
>> use Windows XP and Vista. All you have is what you misinterpret
>> from what you read.
>
> The difference is that the XP user goes online for updates, but
> according to Vista's EULA it re-validates even if the machine isn't
> connected to any network. Presumably they would have to phone Microsoft
> for stand alone machines. Just have your mobile phone handy if you've
> got your Dell halfway up a mountain when Vista decides a check up is due.
I think you are reading too much into the EULA.
Steve
Steve de Mena
Absurd. Believe it or not many people are not
connected to the Internet.
Steve
Peter Hayes
> "Peter Hayes" <noti...@btinternet.com> stated in post
> 20061122184...@news.individual.net on 11/22/06 11:47 AM:
>
>>> As I said, just like Windows XP.
>>
>> It's NOT "just like Windows XP". It checks up "from time to time" to
>> "validate the software". XP validates once and that's it. I thought
>> you'd have known that...
>>
>>> And it's no worry to anybody who has legal copies of Windows.
>>
>> It does if it erroneously decides that the software is "pirated".
>
> With XP, even after you buy the software, you have to ask permission
> to use it. If Microsoft grants you permission, you are, for the most
> part, free and clear.
>
> With Vista, it seems, you have to repeatedly play "Mother may I" and
> hope Microsoft continues to grant permission.
>
> What happens on the off chance Microsoft were to go out of business?
> Once your current "lease" is used up, your computer would be crippled
> by the lack of a working OS.
The most likely reason Microsoft would go out of business would be the
rise of Linux, so there would be a ready made substitute.
Either that or Microsoft got sued to bankrupcy.
Of course, it doesn't need Microsoft to go out of business, just someone
to hack into their validation server to cause chaos.
For all we know this scheme has been mandated by Homeland Security as a
way of shutting down all Windows machines worldwide on their order.
> I get why MS feels the need to do this, but I prefer an OS that does
> not do this.
I totally agree - it just reinforces my decision to avoid Microsoft.
--
Peter
Snit
> In <C189EA63.660C3%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> Snit wrote:
>> "Peter Hayes" <noti...@btinternet.com> stated in post
>> 20061122184...@news.individual.net on 11/22/06 11:47 AM:
>>
>>>> As I said, just like Windows XP.
>>>
>>> It's NOT "just like Windows XP". It checks up "from time to time" to
>>> "validate the software". XP validates once and that's it. I thought
>>> you'd have known that...
>>>
>>>> And it's no worry to anybody who has legal copies of Windows.
>>>
>>> It does if it erroneously decides that the software is "pirated".
>>
>> With XP, even after you buy the software, you have to ask permission
>> to use it. If Microsoft grants you permission, you are, for the most
>> part, free and clear.
>>
>> With Vista, it seems, you have to repeatedly play "Mother may I" and
>> hope Microsoft continues to grant permission.
>>
>> What happens on the off chance Microsoft were to go out of business?
>> Once your current "lease" is used up, your computer would be crippled
>> by the lack of a working OS.
>
> The most likely reason Microsoft would go out of business would be the
> rise of Linux, so there would be a ready made substitute.
>
> Either that or Microsoft got sued to bankrupcy.
>
> Of course, it doesn't need Microsoft to go out of business, just someone
> to hack into their validation server to cause chaos.
>
> For all we know this scheme has been mandated by Homeland Security as a
> way of shutting down all Windows machines worldwide on their order.
Or, if not all machines, to track machines in other parts of the world and
shut them down if the Government decides... or, since such tracking would be
hard, only allow certain government computers to run. Who knows? Either
way, you are at MS's mercy to not have a computer that becomes crippled at
their discretion.
>> I get why MS feels the need to do this, but I prefer an OS that does
>> not do this.
>
> I totally agree - it just reinforces my decision to avoid Microsoft.
No argument here.
--
€ Different viruses are still different even if in the same "family"
€ Dreamweaver and GoLive are professional web development applications
€ Dreamweaver, being the #1 pro web design tool, is used by many pros
Mr. Blonde
"Steve de Mena" <ste...@stevedemena.com> wrote in message news:%l39h.38444
> Absurd. Believe it or not many people are not
> connected to the Internet.
Yeah, have fun digging up the 1-800 number and going through MS's automated
phone activation system every time Vista feels the urge to verify itself.
Really a fantastic use of one's time. Absurd indeed.
Peter Hayes
What is there too much to read in
"5. VALIDATION.
a. The software will from time to time validate the software"
Seems clear enough to me.
--
Peter
Peter Hayes
It's also a way Microsoft could introduce a subscription model for
future releases, perhaps even as early as Vista SP1 - accept SP1 and you
accept, via the EULA, a transfer from "owned" software to rented.
I don't know why the Windows community isn't in an uproar over this -
the more I think about it the less I like it.
--
Peter
Snit
>>> The most likely reason Microsoft would go out of business would be
>>> the rise of Linux, so there would be a ready made substitute. Either
>>> that or Microsoft got sued to bankrupcy. Of course, it doesn't need
>>> Microsoft to go out of business, just someone to hack into their
>>> validation server to cause chaos. For all we know this scheme has
>>> been mandated by Homeland Security as a way of shutting down all
>>> Windows machines worldwide on their order.
>>
>> Or, if not all machines, to track machines in other parts of the world
>> and shut them down if the Government decides... or, since such
>> tracking would be hard, only allow certain government computers to run.
>> Who knows? Either way, you are at MS's mercy to not have a computer
>> that becomes crippled at their discretion.
>
> It's also a way Microsoft could introduce a subscription model for
> future releases, perhaps even as early as Vista SP1 - accept SP1 and you
> accept, via the EULA, a transfer from "owned" software to rented.
And then you have to pay a yearly fee to keep using it... if they go that
route I doubt they will do it until a large number of people are using Vista
and there is software dependant on it. Then charge people, say, $20 a year
- as a start. People will whine a bit about $19.95, but not that much...
but a couple years later it goes up to $24.95... etc. What a powerful
revenue stream. Not saying it *will* happen, but it could.
> I don't know why the Windows community isn't in an uproar over this -
> the more I think about it the less I like it.
They do not see it as much different than XP... and it is not... one step at
a time as you slowly march toward subscriptions.
--
€ Nuclear arms are arms
€ OS X's Command+Scroll wheel function does not exist in default XP
€ Technical competence and intelligence are not the same thing
Steve de Mena
Maybe because software activation, and occasional
checks, are nothing new. I have had more problems
with Adobe apps and having to re-activate than
with Windows XP.
Steve
Steve de Mena
I guess I don't see the part there where if you
are not connected to the internet that somehow the
whole system will cease to function immediately
because of one of these "time to time"
validations. Maybe it will just prevent you from
getting updates from Windows Update, or something
like that, after a 30-day grace period?
Steve
Snit
xb49h.9944$Fg....@tornado.socal.rr.com on 11/22/06 3:29 PM:
>> It's also a way Microsoft could introduce a subscription model for
>> future releases, perhaps even as early as Vista SP1 - accept SP1 and you
>> accept, via the EULA, a transfer from "owned" software to rented.
>>
>> I don't know why the Windows community isn't in an uproar over this -
>> the more I think about it the less I like it.
>>
>
> Maybe because software activation, and occasional
> checks, are nothing new. I have had more problems
> with Adobe apps and having to re-activate than
> with Windows XP.
I teach college classes. My students are adults. I also used to teach, and
may again teach, K-12 classes. In both cases there are times, of course,
when students need to use the restroom.
In K-12 the students must ask me. I almost never say no - of course they
can (though they may have to wait), but I still need to have then ask so I
know where they are. They are children and I am responsible for them.
With college students - adults - they can just get up and leave at any time.
Maybe they need to use the restroom... maybe they have a phone call (set to
*vibrate*, please!)... maybe they just need a breath of fresh air. None of
my business... unless they are disruptive. If they do poorly on projects
and tests because they missed too much class that is their problem.
Now look at MS: you... or your computer... has to *ask* to keep working.
Even if the answer is always - or almost always - yes, the fact you have to
ask is because they are treating you like a child or a criminal - *not* like
a responsible adult. Look at the MS folks, however, who just happily accept
the assumption that they are not responsible adults, which, from what we see
of many of them in CSMA, many of them are not. Perhaps MS is treating its
customers as children because that is what their customers feel is best for
them... there may be more to this than just anti-piracy.
--
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
€ Things which are not the same are not "identical"
€ The word "ouch" is not a sure sign of agreement.
Peter Hayes
>> future releases, perhaps even as early as Vista SP1 - accept SP1 and
>> you accept, via the EULA, a transfer from "owned" software to rented.
>>
>> I don't know why the Windows community isn't in an uproar over this -
>> the more I think about it the less I like it.
>>
>
> Maybe because software activation, and occasional
> checks, are nothing new. I have had more problems
> with Adobe apps and having to re-activate than
> with Windows XP.
It's not the original activation scheme, it's the promise of routine
checks and everything that could flow from it that's so unpleasant.
We're not dealing with a specialist developer, we're dealing with a
monopoly OS supplier that millions of disperate users have to deal with
in a host of different circumstances.
--
Peter
Peter Hayes
"If, after a validation check, the software is found not to be properly
licensed [...] you may [...] not be able to use or continue to use some
of the features of the software." EULA section 5c, paraphrased for
clarity.
--
Peter
Steve de Mena
Did you not see what I wrote, that I have had more
problems with Adobe's periodic checks than Windows
XP? Everytime I go to Windows Update or to
download a free extra it runs the WGA (Windows
Genuine Advantage) and it has never failed for me.
Maybe if I had disk corruption, like those links
someone posted, I would have problems, but chances
are I would have more problems than just Windows
re-activating.
Every year EULAs seem to get longer and more
restrictive, but in reality the enforcement behind
it is not there. Until such time as we see real
world issues with Vista, I think it is premature
to spout all this gloom and doom. From what I
have heard Vista is actually more lenient on
hardware detection changes than Windows XP was.
Steve
Snit
>> It's not the original activation scheme, it's the promise of routine
>> checks and everything that could flow from it that's so unpleasant.
>> We're not dealing with a specialist developer, we're dealing with a
>> monopoly OS supplier that millions of disperate users have to deal with
>> in a host of different circumstances.
>
> Did you not see what I wrote, that I have had more
> problems with Adobe's periodic checks than Windows
> XP?
I not like that Adobe does this... though if it fails at least my whole
computer is not crippled. A personal computer without an OS is crippled by
that lacking, a personal computer without an image editing program may
cripple someone's ability to get *that* work done, but it does not fully
cripple the machine.
> Everytime I go to Windows Update or to download a free extra it runs the WGA
> (Windows Genuine Advantage) and it has never failed for me.
Irrelevant. You are still being treated as something other than a
responsible adult...
> Maybe if I had disk corruption, like those links someone posted, I would have
> problems, but chances are I would have more problems than just Windows
> re-activating.
>
> Every year EULAs seem to get longer and more restrictive, but in reality the
> enforcement behind it is not there. Until such time as we see real world
> issues with Vista, I think it is premature to spout all this gloom and doom.
> From what I have heard Vista is actually more lenient on hardware detection
> changes than Windows XP was.
In my college classes my students are treated like responsible adults. They
can get up and use the bathroom any time they want. It would be offensive
if I insisted they always ask - even if I never said no.
--
€ Pros aren't beginners in their field (though there are new pros)
€ Similarly configured Macs and Win machines tend to cost roughly the same
€ Some people do use the term "screen name" in relation to IRC
Edwin
Mr. Blonde wrote:
> Edwin wrote:
>
> > Every one of them fail to supply the requested documentation. Peter
> > was talking about a system shutting down because it fails to validate
> > when it goes out for its periodic check of the validation.
>
>
> You're asking for cases of Vista's periodic activation check failing,
> even though Vista isn't released and is only being used by a small
> number of people?
Yes, I'm asking for documentation of what Peter claimed, not an
unrelated issue.
> Regardless, XP's intial activation check can fail for a wide variety of
> reasons.
I've never had it fail. And even if it did, MS is availabe 24/7, toll
free, to make it work.
> It stands to reason that Vista's periodic activation check,
> which most likely uses a similar validation scheme, could fail for the
> same reasons.
No it couldn't. For it to be at the point of doing periodic checks,
the intial validation would have had to work, meaning none of the
problems you referenced would apply.
> Hell, what happens if your ISP takes a dump at the same
> time Microsoft decides to check your computer's bus pass? You're S.O.L.
I highly doubt MS will immediately shut down your PC if an automatic
validation check fails. You guys live in some sort of paranoid dream
world.
Edwin
Thundercleets wrote:
> Edwin wrote:
> > Peter Hayes wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thundercleets wrote:
> > > >> Vista's EULA Product Activation Worries
> > > >> Mark Rasch, 2006-11-20
> > > >>
> > > >> >From Security Focus
> > > >>
> > > >> The EULA ominously warns that "Before you activate, you have the
> > > >> right to use the version of the software installed during the
> > > >> installation process. Your right to use the software after the time
> > > >> specified in the installation process is limited unless it is
> > > >> activated. This is to prevent its unlicensed use. You will not be
> > > >> able to continue using the software after that time if you do not
> > > >> activate it. " What does this mean? Essentially, if you buy a license
> > > >> to the software from a reputable dealer, but choose not to transmit
> > > >> information to Microsoft, you forfeit your ability to use the
> > > >> licensed software.
> > > >>
> > > >> link: http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423/2
> > > >
> > > > That's no different than the current XP EULA. If people didn't
> > > > share license codes, the activation wouldn't be necessary.
> > >
> > > Evidently you didn't read the article.
> >
> > You're wrong... as usual.
> >
> > > "You see, even after you activate
> > > the software, update or require download of the validation feature of
> > > version and product key of the software, and the Internet protocol
> > > address of the device.""
> >
> > legal copies of Windows.
>
> Speaking of which,
> M$ only supports retail on white box unless the seller of same said is
> also a recognized (and paid up) M$ OEM which is unlikely in the case of
> a white box.
> So if you are running OEM licensed Windows on a white box and you do
> not have a sticker on your white box than you are illegal and you need
> to by a retail copy.
I've bought and activated several OEM copies of Windows XP. You're
full of crap.
> Unlike XP at least for now, Vista will enforce a single re-activation
> after a failure in software. Then you need to buy a new copy.
*chough*bullshit*chough*
> > > >> Windows users getting bent for Bill in Vista as before...
> > > >
> > > > How do you figure? Activation is a simple, painless procedure that
> > > > takes nothing away from the owner.
>
> Except your privacy.
Is your tinfoil hat on tight enough? I ask for information only.
> and
>
> The Vista and the EULAs that are being forced down with critical flaw
> patches will be end up being the same if they are not already. So with
> that you give M$ the ability to shut down your Windows install and deny
> access to your original works.
> If they make a mistake you cannot sue for more than the cost of the
> Windows usage license and you would still have to buy a second copy to
> even see your data.
You're nuts. Even if they didn't let you run your copy of Windows,
that wouldn't stop you from reading the data on the HD. And they're
not going to be doing any checks that instantly disable your computer
if they fail.
> Looks like a lease model to me.
Try taking a look at it out here in the real world.
> > > It's the repeating activations with the possibility of erroneous failure
> > > that's the problem.
> >
> > Nice FUD, but doesn't your arse hurt after pulling out that whopper?
> >
> > > Your surgeon has begun your heart replacement procedure and Microsoft
> > > decides it's time for your life support machine to phone home for a
> > > validation check.
> >
> > Those type of machines don't run on Windows, and even if they did, they
> > would make provisions for such a thing in advance.
> >
> > > Your nuclear reactor is winding out the graphite rods because of
> > > increased demand and Microsoft decides it's time for the controller to
> > > phone home for a validation check.
> >
> > You don't live in anything remotely resembling the real world, do you?
> > I thought not.
> >
> > > No-one will use Vista in anything remotely mission critical because of
> > > the potential for massive third party lawsuits.
> >
> > You seem to think MS made it to the top by running nuclear reactors and
> > life support machines. Major clue for you: Windows is the number one
> > desktop computer OS. Windows has always carried the disclaimer it's
> > not for the type of applications you're worried about. Those things
> > are typically run by Unix or some proprietary RTOS.
>
> Usually that would be true because who in their right mind would run
> Windows for anything but games.
You must have got that impression from the software Apple makes to run
on Windows, such as File Maker Pro, iTunes, QuickTime, etc.
> You might be surprised on how Ballmer, Bill & Co. spend their backdoor
> money. The Navy uses Windows on some of their newer missle destroyers
> even though during testing the dedicated systems on Windows had to be
> rebooted several times a day versus BSD and other *nix platforms.
You never get tired of that myth, do you?
Steve de Mena
That doesn't seem to negate the scenario I
proposed. It certainly doesn't imply your
computer will become a paperweight if this
validation check fails.
Steve
Peter Hayes
It hinges on Microsoft's definition of "some" in "not be able to use or
continue to use some of the features of the software."
If "some" is the Aero scheme, that's annoying but not fatal. If "some"
means everything except your internet connection and an upgrade sales
pitch, that's a different thing altogether.
I guess we'll soon find out from real world examples.
--
Peter
Mr. Blonde
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1164236449....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > It stands to reason that Vista's periodic activation check,
> > which most likely uses a similar validation scheme, could fail for the
> > same reasons.
>
> No it couldn't. For it to be at the point of doing periodic checks,
> the intial validation would have had to work, meaning none of the
> problems you referenced would apply.
Causes of activation failures included things like installing service packs,
deleting/moving the activation file, or changing the drive identification.
It's conceivable, in fact, probable that those type of actions could occur
after the initial verification and be flagged in a subsequent validation
check.
> > Hell, what happens if your ISP takes a dump at the same
> > time Microsoft decides to check your computer's bus pass? You're S.O.L.
>
> I highly doubt MS will immediately shut down your PC if an automatic
> validation check fails.
You might be right. There may be a slight grace period but it's still a
huge annoyance.
>You guys live in some sort of paranoid dream world.
Not really. We have seats of CodeWarrior here at work that do periodic
verification via the internet. This check has failed on the few occasions
when we've lost our internet connection and Metrowerks would not run,
period. Our developers were S.O.L. if they needed to do a code build. I'd
hate to have my operating system vulnerable to this type of shutdown on my
home machine.
Edwin
Mr. Blonde wrote:
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:1164236449....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > > It stands to reason that Vista's periodic activation check,
> > > which most likely uses a similar validation scheme, could fail for the
> > > same reasons.
> >
> > No it couldn't. For it to be at the point of doing periodic checks,
> > problems you referenced would apply.
>
> Causes of activation failures included things like installing service packs,
Old service packs for different versions of Windows don't apply to
Vista.
> deleting/moving the activation file,
Willful sabotage of the system gets the culprit what he deserves.
> or changing the drive identification.
B.S.!
> It's conceivable, in fact, probable that those type of actions could occur
> after the initial verification and be flagged in a subsequent validation
> check.
Tell it to somebody who doesn't use Windows. I wish I had a nickel
for every successful Windows validation I've been through.
> > > Hell, what happens if your ISP takes a dump at the same
> > > time Microsoft decides to check your computer's bus pass? You're S.O.L.
> >
> > I highly doubt MS will immediately shut down your PC if an automatic
> > validation check fails.
>
> You might be right. There may be a slight grace period but it's still a
> huge annoyance.
Slight period? Most likely a month. And it's no trouble at all to
straighten out.
> >You guys live in some sort of paranoid dream world.
>
> Not really. We have seats of CodeWarrior here at work that do periodic
> verification via the internet. This check has failed on the few occasions
> when we've lost our internet connection and Metrowerks would not run,
> period. Our developers were S.O.L. if they needed to do a code build. I'd
> hate to have my operating system vulnerable to this type of shutdown on my
> home machine.
So you're blaming MS for something Metrowerks does. MS validation
doesn't work like that. You get a month to get your validation, and
then it only shuts down some features, it doesn't disable the computer,
if you don't validate.
Step out into the sunshine and fresh air of the real world...
Josh McKee
Peter Hayes <noti...@btinternet.com> wrote:
According to reports should a subsequent validation fail you will be
given 30 days to re-activate the product:
"Microsoft will continue to check if Vista was legitimately acquired,
even after activation. This happens, for example, when downloading
additional Microsoft programs. Should a license key be deemed
illegitimate, the user will be given another 30-day grace period to
acquire a legitimate license key, Microsoft said.
During this grace period warnings will be displayed and Vista will block
access to the Windows Defender antispyware tool, ReadyBoost memory
expansion feature and Aero advanced graphics option, Microsoft said.
Also, a persistent text will display in the lower right hand of the
screen: "This copy of Windows is not genuine."
If Vista is not validated after the 30 days, the user will again be
locked out.."
http://news.com.com/Microsoft+to+lock+pirates+out+of+Vista+PCs/2100-7355_
3-6122462.html
While I despise product activation this is nothing more than clueless
people fear mongering.
Josh
ZnU
Josh McKee <jtm...@rm-bogus-ac.net> wrote:
Sorry, did you read the quote you just posted? During the 30 day "grace"
period, Microsoft deliberately leaves your system open to attack, and
disables a feature which may prevent some of your applications from
working. That doesn't sound very graceful to me!
Honestly, this is insane. Not every machine has regular Internet access.
What are you supposed to do if you're traveling through rural China with
your laptop for a month? Or if you just happen to want to set up a
machine that has no reason to connect to the Internet?
Well, you're supposed to use Linux or buy a Mac, I guess.
--
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
-- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005
Snit
>>> Hell, what happens if your ISP takes a dump at the same
>>> time Microsoft decides to check your computer's bus pass? You're S.O.L.
>>
>> I highly doubt MS will immediately shut down your PC if an automatic
>> validation check fails.
>
> You might be right. There may be a slight grace period but it's still a
> huge annoyance.
Gee, you might get notified that your computer is going to be crippled.
Swell.
Snit
znu-4B138F.2...@individual.net on 11/22/06 6:57 PM:
Use the Internet, be prepared to call MS, or have your computer be crippled.
And that is when things go right.
Splendid.
Steve de Mena
Aero and ReadyBoost are not required for any
application on the planet to function. They are
eye candy and a possible speed improvement
feature. "Block access to" Windows Defender
doesn't imply it is disabled.
Steve
ZnU
ReadyBoost is pretty useless. Nothing requires Aero right now because
Vista isn't on the market, but it's not hard to imagine applications a
few years down the road being pretty incoherent if they're designed for
Aero and run with it disabled. (Microsoft will probably recommend
against designing applications like this, but Windows developers are
pretty infamous for ignoring such recommendations.)
> "Block access to" Windows Defender doesn't imply it is disabled.
Well, I'd say it implies it. It isn't *necessarily*, but it is implied.
GreyCloud
>> Sorry, did you read the quote you just posted? During the 30 day
>> "grace" period, Microsoft deliberately leaves your system open to
>> attack, and disables a feature which may prevent some of your
>> applications from working. That doesn't sound very graceful to me!
>
>
> Aero and ReadyBoost are not required for any application on the planet
> to function. They are eye candy and a possible speed improvement
> feature. "Block access to" Windows Defender doesn't imply it is disabled.
Just says that you can't use it till you reactivate. In the meantime,
it is disabled.
--
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?
Steve de Mena
Seems like reasonable actions to take against a
pirate.
Steve
Peter Hayes
> If Vista is not validated after the 30 days, the user will again
> be locked out.."
There's no evidence to suggest that a period of grace is the only option
available.
> <http://news.com.com/Microsoft+to+lock+pirates+out+of+Vista+PCs/2100-
> 7355_3-6122462.html>
"Companies will need to expend time and effort and some money to
administer this, in the name of helping Microsoft recoup revenue lost to
piracy,"
As opposed to expending time and effort and some money to install an OS
that doesn't leave the organisation in thrall to Microsoft.
> While I despise product activation this is nothing more than clueless
> people fear mongering.
This is more than just product activation. It's a scheme whereby
Microsoft, or any third party with access to the technology, can switch
off your computer when and where they choose.
Is it fear mongering to wonder if Vista machines around the world could
be knocked out at the whim of Homeland Security?
Is it fear mongering to wonder if there's vast scope for blackmail from
outsiders or a disgruntled employee attacking an organisation's KMS
server?
Is it fear mongering to wonder If Microsoft manage to roll out this
periodic activation scheme successfully they'll turn Vista into a
subscription OS?
Home users buying Dell might not give two hoots, but corporates and
governments should think it through. Using Windows machines was bad
enough previously, with their associated malware threat, but the dangers
from this scheme are too great.
--
Peter
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Mr. Blonde" <PseuDoughI...@lycos.com> stated in post
> 1164229059.0...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com on 11/22/06 1:57 PM:
>
>>
>> Edwin wrote:
>>
>>> Every one of them fail to supply the requested documentation. Peter
>>> was talking about a system shutting down because it fails to validate
>>> when it goes out for its periodic check of the validation.
>>
>>
>> You're asking for cases of Vista's periodic activation check failing,
>> even though Vista isn't released and is only being used by a small
>> number of people?
>>
>> Regardless, XP's intial activation check can fail for a wide variety of
>> reasons. It stands to reason that Vista's periodic activation check,
>> which most likely uses a similar validation scheme, could fail for the
>> same reasons. Hell, what happens if your ISP takes a dump at the same
>> time Microsoft decides to check your computer's bus pass? You're S.O.L.
>>
> The fact you have to repeatedly ask permission to use your OS is offensive.
> MS has control, remotely, of when or if your machine becomes crippled.
Excellent! now you're getting the hang of it Snit!
If it's installed but you can't access it....'crippled'...well done!.
> That is not something I will be happy with.
:-(
> I will only be running Vista via Parallels, so even if Vista is crippled by a
> faulty "activation" check most of what I do will not be hurt.
--
"Essentially any unshielded detonation of a nuclear weapon in a city is a
BAD thing."-Snit
Steve de Mena
> In <jtmckee-593656...@netnews.comcast.net> Josh McKee wrote:
>
>> If Vista is not validated after the 30 days, the user will again
>> be locked out.."
>
> There's no evidence to suggest that a period of grace is the only option
> available.
>
>> <http://news.com.com/Microsoft+to+lock+pirates+out+of+Vista+PCs/2100-
>> 7355_3-6122462.html>
>
> "Companies will need to expend time and effort and some money to
> administer this, in the name of helping Microsoft recoup revenue lost to
> piracy,"
>
> As opposed to expending time and effort and some money to install an OS
> that doesn't leave the organisation in thrall to Microsoft.
>
>> While I despise product activation this is nothing more than clueless
>> people fear mongering.
>
> This is more than just product activation. It's a scheme whereby
> Microsoft, or any third party with access to the technology, can switch
> off your computer when and where they choose.
>
> Is it fear mongering to wonder if Vista machines around the world could
> be knocked out at the whim of Homeland Security?
Exactly how would that be accomplished?
> Is it fear mongering to wonder if there's vast scope for blackmail from
> outsiders or a disgruntled employee attacking an organisation's KMS
> server?
I think you feel that "taking down" a KMS server
would shut down a company.
A client tries to contact a KMS server every 7
days. When it does it renews itself for 180 days.
So shutting off the KMS servers (note the
plural, a large organization would likely have
dozens or more spread throughout their entire
organization) would have no effect for months.
You could cause more trouble corrupting their
Active Directory infrastructure.
Steve
Steve de Mena
> Home users buying Dell might not give two hoots, but corporates and
> governments should think it through. Using Windows machines was bad
> enough previously, with their associated malware threat, but the dangers
> from this scheme are too great.
>
Once a corporation activates its Key Management
Servers those servers never communicate with
Microsoft again. And all of the company's Vista
clients only talk to the company's own key
management servers. So there is no way Microsoft,
or someone else, can flick a switch and "shut off"
all systems.
Steve
Snit
In my college classes I assume my students are responsible adults and treat
them as such. I never make them ask permission to go potty. MS does not
respect its customers enough to give them the same leeway... you have to
repeatedly ask to use your OS. Even if they always give permission, it is
still a sign that they assume their customers are not responsible adults.
I, personally, do not appreciate that assumption, even though I understand
their reasoning for making it.
Josh McKee
ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
Yes...I read it. And as usual I think the Maccies are grossly blowing
this out of proportion. I've been using Vista for quite some time and
have not once had to reactivate it. We heard similar doom and gloom
stories with Windows XPs PA. Will there be some problems? I suspect
there will. But relatively speaking they will be the exception and not
the norm.
Josh
Snit
jtmckee-B10859...@netnews.comcast.net on 11/23/06 6:46 AM:
>>> While I despise product activation this is nothing more than clueless
>>> people fear mongering.
>>
>> Sorry, did you read the quote you just posted? During the 30 day "grace"
>> period, Microsoft deliberately leaves your system open to attack, and
>> disables a feature which may prevent some of your applications from
>> working. That doesn't sound very graceful to me!
>
> Yes...I read it. And as usual I think the Maccies are grossly blowing
> this out of proportion. I've been using Vista for quite some time and
> have not once had to reactivate it. We heard similar doom and gloom
> stories with Windows XPs PA. Will there be some problems? I suspect
> there will. But relatively speaking they will be the exception and not
> the norm.
It is not a question of how often or, really, even the answer.
In my college classes I treat my students like responsible adults. They
never have to ask to go potty. Why should I have to ask to use my OS.
Ever?
Peter Hayes
I moved the drive with RC1 on it to another machine and it gave me three
days to re-activate.
I'm waiting to see what happens when the three days run out...
> We heard similar doom and gloom
> stories with Windows XPs PA. Will there be some problems? I suspect
> there will. But relatively speaking they will be the exception and not
> the norm.
--
Peter
GreyCloud
But not a reasonable action for the end user to put up with.
GreyCloud
No, it is just Bill Gates blowing his paranoia about piracy into a
mountain and about how much money he thinks he lost.
GreyCloud
>>Yes...I read it. And as usual I think the Maccies are grossly blowing
>>this out of proportion. I've been using Vista for quite some time and
>>have not once had to reactivate it.
>
>
> I moved the drive with RC1 on it to another machine and it gave me three
> days to re-activate.
>
> I'm waiting to see what happens when the three days run out...
Keep us posted. You got me curious. :-)
GreyCloud
Odd thing is, no other o/s vendor has such a feature to cripple its
users like this.
Josh McKee
Peter Hayes <noti...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> In <jtmckee-B10859...@netnews.comcast.net> Josh McKee wrote:
> > In article <znu-4B138F.2...@individual.net>,
> > ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <jtmckee-593656...@netnews.comcast.net>,
> >> Josh McKee <jtm...@rm-bogus-ac.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > While I despise product activation this is nothing more than
> >> > clueless people fear mongering.
> >>
> >> Sorry, did you read the quote you just posted? During the 30 day
> >> "grace" period, Microsoft deliberately leaves your system open to
> >> attack, and disables a feature which may prevent some of your
> >> applications from working. That doesn't sound very graceful to me!
> >
> > Yes...I read it. And as usual I think the Maccies are grossly blowing
> > this out of proportion. I've been using Vista for quite some time and
> > have not once had to reactivate it.
>
> I moved the drive with RC1 on it to another machine and it gave me three
> days to re-activate.
>
> I'm waiting to see what happens when the three days run out...
I assume it will drop into reduced functionality mode which will
essentially prevent you from doing anything with it except for
activating it. At least that's what happened on my rc1 install that I
didn't activate before the two week grace period expired. As a result of
this I did discover a weakness with reduce functionality mode: you
cannot install any drivers. Thus I had to re-install as I was unable to
activate the product to allow me to install the network driver which
would allow me to activate the product.
Josh
ZnU
Josh McKee <jtm...@rm-bogus-ac.net> wrote:
I guess we just have different standards. Personally, I'm not willing to
accept an operating system that is deliberately engineered to have
additional ongoing failure modes because the vendor assumes I'm a thief.
Particularly when I think everyone involved knows it won't actually do
anything to stop piracy.
Josh McKee
ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
Actually we don't. PA was the primary reason I have not moved to XP from
2000. Unfortunately I am looking to buy a new PC soon and it's almost a
sure thing that it will comes with Vista.
> Particularly when I think everyone involved knows it won't actually do
> anything to stop piracy.
Josh
Steve de Mena
> In <jtmckee-B10859...@netnews.comcast.net> Josh McKee wrote:
>> In article <znu-4B138F.2...@individual.net>,
>> ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <jtmckee-593656...@netnews.comcast.net>,
>>> Josh McKee <jtm...@rm-bogus-ac.net> wrote:
>>>> While I despise product activation this is nothing more than
>>>> clueless people fear mongering.
>>> Sorry, did you read the quote you just posted? During the 30 day
>>> "grace" period, Microsoft deliberately leaves your system open to
>>> attack, and disables a feature which may prevent some of your
>>> applications from working. That doesn't sound very graceful to me!
>> Yes...I read it. And as usual I think the Maccies are grossly blowing
>> this out of proportion. I've been using Vista for quite some time and
>> have not once had to reactivate it.
>
> I moved the drive with RC1 on it to another machine and it gave me three
> days to re-activate.
>
> I'm waiting to see what happens when the three days run out...
Not a good test doing this with a pre-release
version. It won't "tell" you anything about
Vista's activation policies or actions.
Steve
Steve de Mena
So how do you describe Steve Jobs when he puts in
serial number activation and/or USB dongles into
his products? Is that not paranoia also?
Steve
Steve de Mena
Are there really ANY other "OS vendors" out there?
I don't count Apple, who sells their OS with
hardware.
Steve
Snit
Mac users often upgrade their OS.
--
€ Deleting from a *Save* dialog is not a sign of well done design
€ A personal computer without an OS is crippled by that lacking
GreyCloud
There isn't a serial number activation and I do not see USB dongles. I
sure don't see them.
It seems M$ is the only one that does this. A long time ago Gates came
storming into the Bay Area computer users group about how people should
pay up on the Basic license. Back then the vendors expected a bit of
theft and accounted for it. Guess that's why Gates is so rich, eh?
GreyCloud
Yes, unless you have lived in a cave.
> I don't count Apple,
> who sells their OS with hardware.
Guffaw!! Well, I do. Makes you a minority doesn't it, eh?
Steve de Mena
>>> No, it is just Bill Gates blowing his paranoia about piracy into a
>>> mountain and about how much money he thinks he lost.
>>
>>
>> So how do you describe Steve Jobs when he puts in serial number
>> activation and/or USB dongles into his products? Is that not paranoia
>> also?
>
> There isn't a serial number activation and I do not see USB dongles. I
> sure don't see them.
Look at Apple's "Logic Pro" for serial number and
a USB dongle. Aperture and OS X Server have serial
numbers. There might be others too.
Steve
ZnU
Steve de Mena <ste...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
They have serial numbers. They don't have intrusive activation schemes.
Let alone activation schemes which check periodically for the entire
life of the product. Dongles are somewhat obnoxious (particularly with
laptops), but Apple bought the product that way. They'll probably get
rid of the dongle eventually.
And speaking of the life of the product, here's an interesting
question... what happens in 15 years? Seriously. What if I've got data
in old formats that I want to recover, and I pull my old computer out of
the closet to read the discs? Is Microsoft's activation server still
going to be online in 15 years, ready to authorize a copy of Vista?
Steve de Mena
> In article <uJo9h.38620$si3....@tornado.socal.rr.com>,
> Steve de Mena <ste...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
>
>> GreyCloud wrote:
>>
>>>>> No, it is just Bill Gates blowing his paranoia about piracy into a
>>>>> mountain and about how much money he thinks he lost.
>>>>
>>>> So how do you describe Steve Jobs when he puts in serial number
>>>> activation and/or USB dongles into his products? Is that not paranoia
>>>> also?
>>> There isn't a serial number activation and I do not see USB dongles. I
>>> sure don't see them.
>> Look at Apple's "Logic Pro" for serial number and
>> a USB dongle. Aperture and OS X Server have serial
>> numbers. There might be others too.
>
> They have serial numbers. They don't have intrusive activation schemes.
> Let alone activation schemes which check periodically for the entire
> life of the product.
We were talking about people being paranoid and
not trusting customers. Not about supposed period
checks that Vista will do (which I don't even know
if I believe).
> Dongles are somewhat obnoxious (particularly with
> laptops), but Apple bought the product that way. They'll probably get
> rid of the dongle eventually.
Come on, Apple bought Logic YEARS ago, there was
plenty of time to remove the few lines of "dongle
check" code. By the way I was also a Logic user
under Windows who got fucked when Apple bought the
product and discontinued the Windows version.
> And speaking of the life of the product, here's an interesting
> question... what happens in 15 years? Seriously. What if I've got data
> in old formats that I want to recover, and I pull my old computer out of
> the closet to read the discs? Is Microsoft's activation server still
> going to be online in 15 years, ready to authorize a copy of Vista?
>
You don't need an OS to read the disks. In fact
OS X will read any Microsoft file system. (And in
any case you would have the grace period for
activation).
Steve
Tim Murray
>> It does if it erroneously decides that the software is "pirated".
>
> Document cases of such "erroneous" decisions.
Christ, don't you even listen to the news on television or radio? Even with
no computer at all/no Internet, you could hear about it.
ZnU
Steve de Mena <ste...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
> ZnU wrote:
> > In article <uJo9h.38620$si3....@tornado.socal.rr.com>,
> > Steve de Mena <ste...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
> >
> >> GreyCloud wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> No, it is just Bill Gates blowing his paranoia about piracy
> >>>>> into a mountain and about how much money he thinks he lost.
> >>>>
> >>>> So how do you describe Steve Jobs when he puts in serial number
> >>>> activation and/or USB dongles into his products? Is that not
> >>>> paranoia also?
> >>> There isn't a serial number activation and I do not see USB
> >>> dongles. I sure don't see them.
> >> Look at Apple's "Logic Pro" for serial number and a USB dongle.
> >> Aperture and OS X Server have serial numbers. There might be
> >> others too.
> >
> > They have serial numbers. They don't have intrusive activation
> > schemes. Let alone activation schemes which check periodically for
> > the entire life of the product.
>
> We were talking about people being paranoid and not trusting
> customers. Not about supposed period checks that Vista will do (which
> I don't even know if I believe).
Serial numbers are a fairly unintrusive way of keeping honest users
honest by discouraging casual copying. Microsoft's nutty activation
scheme is a far more elaborate mechanism that's clearly designed to
defeat determined pirates (which it probably won't), which requires
everyone using the software to jump through hoops.
> > Dongles are somewhat obnoxious (particularly with laptops), but
> > Apple bought the product that way. They'll probably get rid of the
> > dongle eventually.
>
> Come on, Apple bought Logic YEARS ago, there was plenty of time to
> remove the few lines of "dongle check" code.
But on the other hand, Apple doesn't seem to bother with dongles for
any of its other products. It doesn't look like they care too much one
way or the other.
> By the way I was also a Logic user under Windows who got fucked when
> Apple bought the product and discontinued the Windows version.
>
>
> > And speaking of the life of the product, here's an interesting
> > question... what happens in 15 years? Seriously. What if I've got
> > data in old formats that I want to recover, and I pull my old
> > computer out of the closet to read the discs? Is Microsoft's
> > activation server still going to be online in 15 years, ready to
> > authorize a copy of Vista?
> >
>
> You don't need an OS to read the disks.
If it's 15 years in the future, your current machine might not use the
same media or be able to run the apps that know how to read the files.
[snip]
Steve de Mena
>>> And speaking of the life of the product, here's an interesting
>>> question... what happens in 15 years? Seriously. What if I've got
>>> data in old formats that I want to recover, and I pull my old
>>> computer out of the closet to read the discs? Is Microsoft's
>>> activation server still going to be online in 15 years, ready to
>>> authorize a copy of Vista?
>>>
>> You don't need an OS to read the disks.
>
> If it's 15 years in the future, your current machine might not use the
> same media or be able to run the apps that know how to read the files.
OK, then why did you delete my following sentence
"(And in any case you would have the grace period
for activation)."? That would allow for you, 15
years from now, to dig up that copy of Vista,
install it, and have 30 days of full use to get
your data, before any sort of "activation" is needed.
Instead you just had to run this non-issue into
the ground. Pathetic.
Steve
ZnU
Steve de Mena <ste...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
Sure. And you pray you don't have to do the same thing ever again,
because your copy of Vista will never work again.
> Instead you just had to run this non-issue into the ground.
> Pathetic.
What's pathetic is that you're defending an extremely user-hostile
control mechanism which, I think we both know, it's even going to
actually prevent piracy.
GreyCloud
The o/s that came with my iMac didn't have a serial number activation
for the o/s. Nor is there any USB dongles to run it. Aperture? I
don't run it. If I recall, a lot of high priced software that were sold
for M$ PCs *did* have port dongles to prevent piracy.
Lars Träger
> In <1164210878.1...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Edwin wrote:
> >
> > Nice FUD, but doesn't your arse hurt after pulling out that whopper?
>
> What whopper?
The whopper he flipped.
--
Lars T.
Steve de Mena
These are Apple products I am mentioning.
Microsoft never had USB dongles on any of their
software.
Steve
Steve de Mena
> In article <sCz9h.41041$si3....@tornado.socal.rr.com>,
> Steve de Mena <ste...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
>
>> ZnU wrote:
>>
>>>>> And speaking of the life of the product, here's an interesting
>>>>> question... what happens in 15 years? Seriously. What if I've got
>>>>> data in old formats that I want to recover, and I pull my old
>>>>> computer out of the closet to read the discs? Is Microsoft's
>>>>> activation server still going to be online in 15 years, ready to
>>>>> authorize a copy of Vista?
>>>>>
>>>> You don't need an OS to read the disks.
>>> If it's 15 years in the future, your current machine might not use
>>> the same media or be able to run the apps that know how to read the
>>> files.
>> OK, then why did you delete my following sentence "(And in any case
>> you would have the grace period for activation)."? That would allow
>> for you, 15 years from now, to dig up that copy of Vista, install it,
>> and have 30 days of full use to get your data, before any sort of
>> "activation" is needed.
>
> Sure. And you pray you don't have to do the same thing ever again,
> because your copy of Vista will never work again.
Of course it will work, it will work for 30 days
without activation.
>> Instead you just had to run this non-issue into the ground.
>> Pathetic.
>
> What's pathetic is that you're defending an extremely user-hostile
> control mechanism which, I think we both know, it's even going to
> actually prevent piracy.
I am not defending the mechanism, just your
examples which don't hold water. They are two
different things. I actually DO think these
methods will prompt more people to buy more copies
of Vista. It could also drive more people to OS X
also. :)
Steve
ZnU
Steve de Mena <ste...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
> ZnU wrote:
> > In article <sCz9h.41041$si3....@tornado.socal.rr.com>,
> > Steve de Mena <ste...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
> >
> >> ZnU wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> And speaking of the life of the product, here's an interesting
> >>>>> question... what happens in 15 years? Seriously. What if I've
> >>>>> got data in old formats that I want to recover, and I pull my
> >>>>> old computer out of the closet to read the discs? Is
> >>>>> Microsoft's activation server still going to be online in 15
> >>>>> years, ready to authorize a copy of Vista?
> >>>>>
> >>>> You don't need an OS to read the disks.
> >>> If it's 15 years in the future, your current machine might not
> >>> use the same media or be able to run the apps that know how to
> >>> read the files.
> >> OK, then why did you delete my following sentence "(And in any
> >> case you would have the grace period for activation)."? That would
> >> allow for you, 15 years from now, to dig up that copy of Vista,
> >> install it, and have 30 days of full use to get your data, before
> >> any sort of "activation" is needed.
> >
> > Sure. And you pray you don't have to do the same thing ever again,
> > because your copy of Vista will never work again.
>
> Of course it will work, it will work for 30 days without activation.
I'd assume that's 30 calendar days. In other words, if you have to do
what I've described above, and then you have to do it again 6 months
later, you're screwed.
[snip]
Steve de Mena
No, you re-install (not "upgrade" in place) fresh.
Again and Again for 50 years if you like.
Steve
GreyCloud
So? M$ has serial number activation on their o/s. OS X does not.
Which was part of the point you so conveniently forgot to carry on with.
But there are a lot of 3rd party windows software that is very pricey
that do have dongles.
Mitch
<ste...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
> Doesn't Apple's EULA for OS X specifically mention
> it is not intended for use in mission critical
> applications such as the ones you cite?
Not sure how Apple became part of this discussion, but that clause is
Apple's specific disclaimer from liability. It doesn't actually mean
the OS is less able, just that the OS maker isn't inviting a kind of
liability partnership just because they provide the OS.
> Isn't it more likely the hard drive would crash
> then something going wrong with the "activation
> process" (whatever that is)?
I don't know about more likely, but Microsoft has had a lot of
complaints about authentication going wrong. That is a very bad thing
if it continues with Vista, and a horribly bad thing if they are
designing it into a regular routine of the OS.
Of course, it's too early to say that Vista will have the same problems.
Steve de Mena
> Steve de Mena wrote:
>
>> GreyCloud wrote:
>>
>>> Steve de Mena wrote:
>>>
>>>> GreyCloud wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it is just Bill Gates blowing his paranoia about piracy into
>>>>>>> a mountain and about how much money he thinks he lost.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So how do you describe Steve Jobs when he puts in serial number
>>>>>> activation and/or USB dongles into his products? Is that not
>>>>>> paranoia also?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There isn't a serial number activation and I do not see USB
>>>>> dongles. I sure don't see them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Look at Apple's "Logic Pro" for serial number and a USB dongle.
>>>> Aperture and OS X Server have serial numbers. There might be others
>>>> too.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The o/s that came with my iMac didn't have a serial number activation
>>> for the o/s. Nor is there any USB dongles to run it. Aperture? I
>>> don't run it. If I recall, a lot of high priced software that were
>>> sold for M$ PCs *did* have port dongles to prevent piracy.
>>
>>
>> These are Apple products I am mentioning. Microsoft never had USB
>> dongles on any of their software.
>>
>
> So? M$ has serial number activation on their o/s. OS X does not.
> Which was part of the point you so conveniently forgot to carry on with.
It doesn't have a serial number because it is
generally sold with hardware. If it wasn't I bet
it would have a serial number - you only need to
look at OS X Server, which is serialized, to see that.
Steve
GreyCloud
Nope. Now you are just wishing that Apple users suffer the same plight
as the windows users have to put up with. I performed the o/s upgrade
on the wifes mac after purchasing Tiger, and there were no requests for
serial numbers or any other long winded number to be poked in.
Steve de Mena
So your wife runs OS X *Server*?
Steve
Peter Hayes
> Peter Hayes wrote:
>
>>>Yes...I read it. And as usual I think the Maccies are grossly blowing
>>>this out of proportion. I've been using Vista for quite some time and
>>>have not once had to reactivate it.
>>
>>
>> three days to re-activate. I'm waiting to see what happens when the
>> three days run out...
>
I booted it up again yesterday after a 5 day interval and the same three
days warning reappeared.
Other than that it's working fine.
I have to say it took the switch of motherboards relatively painlessly.
It's still demanding drivers for "Unknown Hardware". How it expects me
to know what the "Unknown Hardware" is is anyone's guess.
--
Peter
Steve de Mena
2007, when vendors like your motherboard/system
manufacturer have their drivers ready.
Steve
Sandman
Steve de Mena <ste...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
> > I have to say it took the switch of motherboards relatively painlessly.
> > It's still demanding drivers for "Unknown Hardware". How it expects me
> > to know what the "Unknown Hardware" is is anyone's guess.
> >
> Maybe it expects you to wait until January 30,
> 2007, when vendors like your motherboard/system
> manufacturer have their drivers ready.
The problem didn't seem to be lack of drivers, but rather Vistas
ability to identify just what kind of hardware it was having problems
with.
Since it's "still" demanding drivers for this unknown device after the
mobo switch (i.e. it said the same thing before switching mobo), it's
not crazy to assume that it wasn't the mobo drivers that was
incompatible...
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve de Mena
No, when the drivers are completed by the vendors,
Microsoft will have more Device IDs in its
database and can identify more. It is unknown
because they know nothing about the ID. They just
look up IDs in a table, they don't actually
"identify" the device.
Steve