Microsoft to Make Windows Anti-Piracy Program Mandatory

[Zisguy1]

as regards MS "subscription model", I saw (actually shot for) Bill Gates last Feb. when he came on tour to talk to our University after having spent a bundle on a new "computer technology" buidling.

He literally said that that's what they were going to be doing.

The day they do this is the day I move to Linux (or a Mac).

Yes, it will be extraordinarily inconvenient, but worth it to be able to continue OWNING MY FREAKIN' PC, NOT RENTING IT!!!

[ViRaL1]

Here's something to think about. If you took your car in for warranty work, would you be offended if the dealership needed to verify your VIN?

[Zisguy1]

Here's something to think about. If you took your car in for warranty work, would you be offended if the dealership needed to verify your VIN?

If it was part of a "Genuinely Purchased Toyota Advantage" program to verify that I wasn't a car thief, I might be offended.

Here's something for you to think about: They could catch a LOT of thieves and reduce crime greatly if they had people follow everyone around all day filming them. If they had the manpower, do you think it would be a good idea? Maybe they could call this the "Katch, Grab, Bust" program, and the for short, the officers could be called KGB agents... yeah, that's it.

[ViRaL1]

Here's something to think about. If you took your car in for warranty work, would you be offended if the dealership needed to verify your VIN?

If it was part of a "Genuinely Purchased Toyota Advantage" program to verify that I wasn't a car thief, I might be offended.

No, it would be more like verifying that your car is 1) an authentic Toyota vehicle and not some 'kit' made to look and work like a Toyota and 2) that it wasn't stolen, regardless of whether or not you stole it. The fact of the matter is that M$ products are heavily pirated and moreover that many people aren't even aware that they're running a pirated version of Window$. Some people unkowingingly bought bootleg copies, some people had it installed by someone else using a key that's already in use. I see systems like this come in all the time especially where people don't have the CD and / or the COA. It doesn't make them pirates, but it isn't M$ responsibility to support them since they never purchased a valid, legal copy of the OS.

[Nilfennasion]

If you take your car anywhere and dislike the service you get, you can decide to buy a Ford or a Honda next time instead. PC users generally don't have that option, even with the presence of Linux in the market (mainly due to Linux's user-unfriendliness), and thanks to Microsoft (DR-DOS, anyone?).

Microsoft's responsibility extends beyond supporting legit customers. They are responsible for an inordinate amount of the garbage that clutters the Internet, and they know it.

[BJ_M]

Here's something to think about. If you took your car in for warranty work, would you be offended if the dealership needed to verify your VIN?

If it was part of a "Genuinely Purchased Toyota Advantage" program to verify that I wasn't a car thief, I might be offended.

Here's something for you to think about: They could catch a LOT of thieves and reduce crime greatly if they had people follow everyone around all day filming them. If they had the manpower, do you think it would be a good idea? Maybe they could call this the "Katch, Grab, Bust" program, and the for short, the officers could be called KGB agents... yeah, that's it.

hmmm - they DO follow people around filming them already -- there are cameras everywhere and sales of face reconition software sales are through the roof ..

ask anyone in london or other large cities or going to the superbowl or now in most airports and gov buildings ...

atm mchines have cameras, many many camera mounted in streets also and just about everywhere else .. ONSTAR and your cell tracks you everywhere ...

[bazooka]

The people who are bothered by this are usually the guilty parties.

That is just my observation.

[mpack]

They say security issues will still be patched for everyone, only non-critical updates will be covered by this.

I assume that validation actually means online validation. How do they intend to implement mandatory validation on PCs which have no network connection?

If you are thinking that every PC has internet access these days - they don't. For example, I have two PCs in my office at work. Both are modern PCs running XP Pro. One is a "secure" PC with no network connection of any kind. The other has a network connection and is used for web browsing, email etc. No data of any importance is stored on the networked PC.

If even Microsoft starts making it difficult for businesses to take whatever security measures they see fit (including blocking all internet access for example), then they might well live to regret it.

[racerxnet]

Microsoft is data mining in the validation process, looking at what software is installed among other things. I remember reading this where the box (PC) was set up with a sniffer to record the information microsoft transmitted during the validation. I can try this some time with snort/snarf, desniff or comview.

MAK

[BJ_M]

They say security issues will still be patched for everyone, only non-critical updates will be covered by this.

I assume that validation actually means online validation. How do they intend to implement mandatory validation on PCs which have no network connection?

If you are thinking that every PC has internet access these days - they don't. For example, I have two PCs in my office at work. Both are modern PCs running XP Pro. One is a "secure" PC with no network connection of any kind. The other has a network connection and is used for web browsing, email etc. No data of any importance is stored on the networked PC.

If even Microsoft starts making it difficult for businesses to take whatever security measures they see fit (including blocking all internet access for example), then they might well live to regret it.

if it is not networked - security issues are not that important now are they ?

[mpack]

if it is not networked - security issues are not that important now are they ?

But according to this thread, the non-critical, non-security updates are precisely the ones that will require mandatory validation, yes?

[BJ_M]

but if you are not networked -- how are you going to get them on your system anyway ?

other than downloading on one machine and copy to disk and carry to other machine.

which in any case - the validation thing is again a moot point


i really see this as a non issue

[shelbyGT]

It's not a big deal. Even pirated versions can get critical updates. C'mon people, case closed. NOT A BIG DEAL AT ALL.

[satviewer2000]

All I can say is that I was using Win98se until about 3 months ago, and have now "upgraded" to Win2000-sp4. I can do anything and everything I need to do on Win2k. I've used WinXP in the past, but hated it, and it was horribly unstable compared to Win2k. So for my "work" computer, I will always be one-step-behind, using an older OS, but which is more stable than anything out there presently.

And of course, no need for activation.

[Nilfennasion]

I had a very bad experience with Windows 2000, although that might have had something to do with the motherboard being badly flashed. The damned thing would constantly blue-screen and often refuse to boot as a result.

Of course, Microsoft anticipates that people might decide they want to stick with an earlier OS. So they deliberately make future programs incompatible with it...

[richdvd]

Another reason to migrate to Linux. Name one other company in the world that threatens and harasses customers like this.

HUH?
LOL....nice reason.

[Zisguy1]

All I can say is that I was using Win98se until about 3 months ago, and have now "upgraded" to Win2000-sp4. I can do anything and everything I need to do on Win2k. I've used WinXP in the past, but hated it, and it was horribly unstable compared to Win2k. So for my "work" computer, I will always be one-step-behind, using an older OS, but which is more stable than anything out there presently.

And of course, no need for activation.

Yeah same here... 98se until last summer, then I switched to Win2k SP4. Actually, I installed it on a 2nd partition & started gradually transitioning. Didn't take long, but it's still nice to be able to drop back to 98se on occasion for a few softwares that don't run on 2k. Dual boot systems rule.

Hell with XP, it's got an ugly user interface and bloated/unnecessary features designed with teenage girls in mind. I'm sticking with 2k as long as possible.

[BJ_M]

1. you can make xp look exactly like win2k by clicking about 2 buttons ..

2. you can run win98 aps in win2k in emulation mode ..

[BJ_M]

3. whats wrong with teenage girls in mind ? they are always on mine

[Nilfennasion]

Teenage girls in mind is all well and good when you're on your own time. When you're designing an "improvement" to an already oversimplified user interface, on the other hand...

[BJ_M]

true == the new xp theme sucks , good thingyou can turn it off

[Nilfennasion]

The interface in Windoze has always left something to be desired. At least in DOS, scripts or batch files enabled a user who knew what he was doing to perform common tasks in an automated sequence. GUI operations are more or less impossible to script, so you wind up repeating the same tasks over and over.

[hudsonf]

All my computers running windows are legal so I don't mind activation. If they decide to go with a paid subscription version I'll definitely go back to Linux. Before WinXP I use to use Mandrake Linux with the KDE desktop. If Linux had more hardware and software support I would have never switched.

[Nilfennasion]

Linux's problems are not limited to compatibility, unfortunately. (As a sidenote, I have yet to have a hardware compatibility problem with Linux.) After trying to download and install several Linux flavours, I've found that the number that allow one to install as straightfowardly as Windoze does is small. Which is not how it should be when trying to compete with such a system. Not that everything should be as oversimplified as Windoze is, but Einstein once had a saying about this. Something along the lines that everything should be as simple as it needs to be, but no simpler. Both Windows and Linux are guilty of violating this law, sadly.

[bazooka]

If it was as easy to rip and burn dvd's in Linux, I would switch, but it's a pain in the posterior, so I will stick with windows.

[mpack]

but if you are not networked -- how are you going to get them on your system anyway ?

other than downloading on one machine and copy to disk and carry to other machine.

which in any case - the validation thing is again a moot point

i really see this as a non issue

Perhaps you see it as a non-issue because you are not the one with the issue...

My current procedure is: I go to my networked PC, I download the needed update, I transfer the resulting file onto a memory stick and carry it to the other PC.

I've already noticed a tendency for the MS website to want to check the setup of my networked PC before I can have access to the update file; I don't have a problem with that because all my PCs are legal, but the check is completely pointless since the target machine is not the one I'm connecting from.

For me to be able to update my non-networked PC - and for that matter my home PC - I need/prefer to be able to download the update as a stand alone file that I can carry over to other PCs and install, and I'm trying to establish whether that will continue to be possible once mandatory online validation comes along.

You see, I'm assuming that MS eventually wants everyone to go through the following process: connect to MS web site, be validated, be automatically updated by the website (ie. no discrete file). If, on the other hand, anyone can come along and download the stand alone file then just how do MS intend to enforce the validation part, and to what purpose? If a separate update file is available at any point in the process then it defeats MS's goal of preventing piracy because that file can then be used to update non-legal PCs and can also be made available covertly on non-MS websites.

Now, if validation was part of the installer for the patch (ie. not online) then I'd be happy. But, I don't see how that helps MS achieve their objective - without an online database of software vs machine serial numbers the validation check is worthless IMHO.

[bazooka]

but if you are not networked -- how are you going to get them on your system anyway ?

other than downloading on one machine and copy to disk and carry to other machine.

which in any case - the validation thing is again a moot point

i really see this as a non issue

Perhaps you see it as a non-issue because you are not the one with the issue...

My current procedure is: I go to my networked PC, I download the needed update, I transfer the resulting file onto a memory stick and carry it to the other PC.

I've already noticed a tendency for the MS website to want to check the setup of my networked PC before I can have access to the update file; I don't have a problem with that because all my PCs are legal, but the check is completely pointless since the target machine is not the one I'm connecting from.

For me to be able to update my non-networked PC - and for that matter my home PC - I need/prefer to be able to download the update as a stand alone file that I can carry over to other PCs and install, and I'm trying to establish whether that will continue to be possible once mandatory online validation comes along.

You see, I'm assuming that MS eventually wants everyone to go through the following process: connect to MS web site, be validated, be automatically updated by the website (ie. no discrete file). If, on the other hand, anyone can come along and download the stand alone file then just how do MS intend to enforce the validation part, and to what purpose? If a separate update file is available at any point in the process then it defeats MS's goal of preventing piracy because that file can then be used to update non-legal PCs and can also be made available covertly on non-MS websites.

Now, if validation was part of the installer for the patch (ie. not online) then I'd be happy. But, I don't see how that helps MS achieve their objective - without an online database of software vs machine serial numbers the validation check is worthless IMHO.

If it is not connected, then you do not need the update.

[BJ_M]

If it is not connected, then you do not need the update.

exactly -- a non issue like i said ..

plus you can download all performance updates anyway from the developers area or whatever its called

[mpack]

If it is not connected, then you do not need the update.

What a strange comment...!

My non-networked PC suffers from bugs in the OS just like the networked PC does. It can also suffer from viruses, trojans and worms just like a networked PC can - only the method of transmission is different. Contrary to what you seem to believe, not every update produced by MS is a security fix for Internet Explorer.

And I've already made the point that MS have specifically said that validation will NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT be relevant to security fixes (I'm hoping that saying it five times will make it get through this time), it will only be relevant to product updates such as the ones I'm interested in receiving: bugfixes and feature upgrades.

I could be wrong. Perhaps you have good reason for thinking that fixes and upgrades affected by the validation issue will only be relevant to networked PCs. If that is the case then please don't leave me in the dark: tell me what that good reason of yours is.

[bazooka]

If it is not connected, then you do not need the update.

What a strange comment...!

My non-networked PC suffers from bugs in the OS just like the networked PC does. It can also suffer from viruses, trojans and worms just like a networked PC can - only the method of transmission is different. Contrary to what you seem to believe, not every update produced by MS is a security fix for Internet Explorer.

And I've already made the point that MS have specifically said that validation will NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT be relevant to security fixes (I'm hoping that saying it five times will make it get through this time), it will only be relevant to product updates such as the ones I'm interested in receiving: bugfixes and feature upgrades.

I could be wrong. Perhaps you have good reason for thinking that fixes and upgrades affected by the validation issue will only be relevant to networked PCs. If that is the case then please don't leave me in the dark: tell me what that good reason of yours is.

Whatever dude

An unpatched and unconnected xp install will be fine without the fixes.

Just keep the antivirus updated.

Either way, you are making a big issue out of nothing.

If you have more questions, pm me.