T
J
Jeff
Todd said:
One down(EULA); one to go! (SPP)
They drop SPP and a whole lot of people will jump on board Vista.
Jeff
M
M. Murcek
If your copy of Vista is genuine, how does SPP hurt you?
L
Larry Maturo
Well, I have a genuine version of Windows XP. Even the support
person told me that, after I read him the info off of the CD. However,
he still charged me $30.00 to keep Windows Update from rejecting
me. You see, if you have a problem, the only way to resolve it is to
pay for a support call, and the money is non-refundable. With XP
it only refused to allow me to get updates. With Vista it will turn your
operating system off, and you will be left with an inaimate lump of
coal, instead of a usable computer. So, it can hurt you big time.
-- Larry Maturo
person told me that, after I read him the info off of the CD. However,
he still charged me $30.00 to keep Windows Update from rejecting
me. You see, if you have a problem, the only way to resolve it is to
pay for a support call, and the money is non-refundable. With XP
it only refused to allow me to get updates. With Vista it will turn your
operating system off, and you will be left with an inaimate lump of
coal, instead of a usable computer. So, it can hurt you big time.
-- Larry Maturo
M
Mark Gillespie
Indeed, the ONLY people with something to fear from SPP (Software
Protection Platform) are software pirates...
B
Barry Watzman
Re: "Indeed, the ONLY people with something to fear from SPP (Software
Protection Platform) are software pirates..."
That's the way that it should be, but not the way that it is,
unfortunately. There are quite a few documented cases in which a
legitimate copy of Windows, a copy that was previously activated
successfully, subsequenly failed a WGA test when no hardware changes has
been made. Apparently it's several percent of the WGA failures, which,
while small in relative terms, is millions or tens of millions of incidents.
Protection Platform) are software pirates..."
That's the way that it should be, but not the way that it is,
unfortunately. There are quite a few documented cases in which a
legitimate copy of Windows, a copy that was previously activated
successfully, subsequenly failed a WGA test when no hardware changes has
been made. Apparently it's several percent of the WGA failures, which,
while small in relative terms, is millions or tens of millions of incidents.
J
Jeff
Yup,Barry said:
Privacy issues; and kill switches aside.
God forbid it falsely invalidates your pc;especially if it's something
critical to you.
Jeff
R
Ronnie Vernon MVP
Larry
You do not have to pay for support for any WGA issues and Microsoft has no way to "shut down" your computer. They can only prevent you from accessing online services such as Windows Update or other services that require a valid copy of Windows.
If you have any validation issues, go to the free Microsoft WGA forums. They are staffed by Microsoft PSS people and will take care of any false validation issues. If they determine that you have a high quality, illegal CD, they will even arrange to replace it with a genuine replacement CD and product key, free of charge.
Speak to us at Microsoft!:
http://forums.microsoft.com/Genuine/default.aspx
--
Ronnie Vernon
Microsoft MVP
Windows Shell/User
You do not have to pay for support for any WGA issues and Microsoft has no way to "shut down" your computer. They can only prevent you from accessing online services such as Windows Update or other services that require a valid copy of Windows.
If you have any validation issues, go to the free Microsoft WGA forums. They are staffed by Microsoft PSS people and will take care of any false validation issues. If they determine that you have a high quality, illegal CD, they will even arrange to replace it with a genuine replacement CD and product key, free of charge.
Speak to us at Microsoft!:
http://forums.microsoft.com/Genuine/default.aspx
--
Ronnie Vernon
Microsoft MVP
Windows Shell/User
<snip>Larry Maturo said:
J
Jeff
Ronnie,Ronnie said:
Look at this post; if you will.
a partial post from Vista admin& acccounts.
"I can just run
LOL lets see; not being able access his hard drive files; I consider
effectively shutting down a pc.
Explain to me; if you will; why MSFT has pulled WGA N from the update
servers? Or why there are 2 class action lawsuits about WGA N in the
courts now?
Jeff
S
Saucy Sass
***I've stated my opinion at length elsewhere under a different nym, but I
will point out some things about what some people, not necessarily me
though, think about only some aspects of SPP. And I am not going to debate
the virtue or vice of SPP - I'm simply reporting here, FYI. ***
Some feel that if SPP does on going checks and reports to Microsoft that it
is an invasion of privacy and a sort of "take over" of the ownership of the
computer i.e. the computer is engaging in activity not specifically
instructed by the owner. Also, if the SPP goes further and actually seizes
the computer - limited or full kill switch and/or any other taking hold of
the computer, it amounts to a seizure of one's personal "papers" and
documents and essentially is a violation of civil rights i.e. unWARRANTed
search and seizure of one's papers and one's possession at Microsoft caprice
and whim and done so without any proper legal recourse available to the
owner of the computer.
So that's why there's this "two-fold" protest of:
1. Please remove the transfer restriction [which has been done - thanks
Microsoft]
and 2. Please do not allow on-going search and possible seizure of the
computer (WGA-N and SPP and like software).
Now this is not about when the Microsoft software is first installed. Most
have accepted Windows Product Activation (WPA) which does a check at install
and occasionally thereafter but entirely client-side. And this is not simple
WGA - requiring a validation if you want to download extras but does not
report on you without your permission.
What is objected to is the on-going checking and reporting to Microsoft by
the operating system [whether one wants this or not] and the never-ending
threat of seizure completely at Microsoft's caprice and whim. Examples of
this are WGA-N and SPP.
Many people are kindly asking that Microsoft drop this scheme and stay with
WPA and WGA, but not go further than that (i.e. drop WGA-N and SPP from the
software).
OK? I hope that helps. Here's the text people are concerned about and that
some people feel Microsoft is according itself way to much liberty over the
control of one's own computer:
[Quote from current proposal for Vista EULA]
5. VALIDATION.
a. The software will from time to time validate the software, update or
require download of the
validation feature of the software. Validation verifies that the software
has been activated and
is properly licensed. Validation also permits you to use certain features of
the software or to
obtain additional benefits. For more information, see
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=39157.
b. During a validation check, the software will send information about the
software and the device
to Microsoft. This information includes the version and product key of the
software, and the
Internet protocol address of the device. Microsoft does not use the
information to identify or
contact you. By using the software, you consent to the transmission of this
information. For
more information about validation and what is sent during a validation
check, see
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=69500.
c. If, after a validation check, the software is found not to be properly
licensed, the functionality of
the software may be affected. For example, you may
· need to reactivate the software, or
· receive reminders to obtain a properly licensed copy of the software,
or you may not be able to
· use or continue to use some of the features of the software, or
· obtain certain updates or upgrades from Microsoft.
d. You may only obtain updates or upgrades for the software from Microsoft
or authorized sources.
For more information on obtaining updates from authorized sources see
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=69502.
[/Quote]
Like I said, I'm not going to mention what I think, rather I'm expressing
what some people think is wrong with SPP just FYI since you asked.
will point out some things about what some people, not necessarily me
though, think about only some aspects of SPP. And I am not going to debate
the virtue or vice of SPP - I'm simply reporting here, FYI. ***
Some feel that if SPP does on going checks and reports to Microsoft that it
is an invasion of privacy and a sort of "take over" of the ownership of the
computer i.e. the computer is engaging in activity not specifically
instructed by the owner. Also, if the SPP goes further and actually seizes
the computer - limited or full kill switch and/or any other taking hold of
the computer, it amounts to a seizure of one's personal "papers" and
documents and essentially is a violation of civil rights i.e. unWARRANTed
search and seizure of one's papers and one's possession at Microsoft caprice
and whim and done so without any proper legal recourse available to the
owner of the computer.
So that's why there's this "two-fold" protest of:
1. Please remove the transfer restriction [which has been done - thanks
Microsoft]
and 2. Please do not allow on-going search and possible seizure of the
computer (WGA-N and SPP and like software).
Now this is not about when the Microsoft software is first installed. Most
have accepted Windows Product Activation (WPA) which does a check at install
and occasionally thereafter but entirely client-side. And this is not simple
WGA - requiring a validation if you want to download extras but does not
report on you without your permission.
What is objected to is the on-going checking and reporting to Microsoft by
the operating system [whether one wants this or not] and the never-ending
threat of seizure completely at Microsoft's caprice and whim. Examples of
this are WGA-N and SPP.
Many people are kindly asking that Microsoft drop this scheme and stay with
WPA and WGA, but not go further than that (i.e. drop WGA-N and SPP from the
software).
OK? I hope that helps. Here's the text people are concerned about and that
some people feel Microsoft is according itself way to much liberty over the
control of one's own computer:
[Quote from current proposal for Vista EULA]
5. VALIDATION.
a. The software will from time to time validate the software, update or
require download of the
validation feature of the software. Validation verifies that the software
has been activated and
is properly licensed. Validation also permits you to use certain features of
the software or to
obtain additional benefits. For more information, see
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=39157.
b. During a validation check, the software will send information about the
software and the device
to Microsoft. This information includes the version and product key of the
software, and the
Internet protocol address of the device. Microsoft does not use the
information to identify or
contact you. By using the software, you consent to the transmission of this
information. For
more information about validation and what is sent during a validation
check, see
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=69500.
c. If, after a validation check, the software is found not to be properly
licensed, the functionality of
the software may be affected. For example, you may
· need to reactivate the software, or
· receive reminders to obtain a properly licensed copy of the software,
or you may not be able to
· use or continue to use some of the features of the software, or
· obtain certain updates or upgrades from Microsoft.
d. You may only obtain updates or upgrades for the software from Microsoft
or authorized sources.
For more information on obtaining updates from authorized sources see
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=69502.
[/Quote]
Like I said, I'm not going to mention what I think, rather I'm expressing
what some people think is wrong with SPP just FYI since you asked.
R
Ronnie Vernon MVP
Jeff
Reduced functionality is a far cry from "shutting down" the computer.
I could not find the message that you cited, do you have the title of the thread or a link?
Reduced functionality means exactly that, you can still boot and perform certain functions on the PC and it still allows you to work with Microsoft to resolve the problem. However, this would only happen after the installation has failed the Product Activation or the WGA validation. This means that the only victims would be someone who has a genuine copy but, for whatever reason is receivng a False Positive. If the user actually has a non-genuine version, then the SPP modules are doing the job they were designed to do.
I'm not thrilled any more than any other user of Windows with the SPP, but I do recognize the reason for it. What I am trying to prevent is mis-information that is spread by people who do not feel a need to verify the statements they are making.
See this link for more information.
Microsoft's Software Protection Platform: Protecting Software and Customers from Counterfeiters: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2006/oct06/10-04SoftwareProtection.mspx
Reduced functionality is a far cry from "shutting down" the computer.
I could not find the message that you cited, do you have the title of the thread or a link?
Reduced functionality means exactly that, you can still boot and perform certain functions on the PC and it still allows you to work with Microsoft to resolve the problem. However, this would only happen after the installation has failed the Product Activation or the WGA validation. This means that the only victims would be someone who has a genuine copy but, for whatever reason is receivng a False Positive. If the user actually has a non-genuine version, then the SPP modules are doing the job they were designed to do.
I'm not thrilled any more than any other user of Windows with the SPP, but I do recognize the reason for it. What I am trying to prevent is mis-information that is spread by people who do not feel a need to verify the statements they are making.
See this link for more information.
Microsoft's Software Protection Platform: Protecting Software and Customers from Counterfeiters: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2006/oct06/10-04SoftwareProtection.mspx
J
Jeff
Misinformation Ronnie?Ronnie said:
LOL Get real
-Reduced functionality;not allowing harddrive access; is more then
functionally inhibiting Aero Ronnie.
Verify? Sure I'll be HAPPY to provide you with that post in full.
Not sayin your happy with it; but "reduced functionality" is more than
limiting Aero Ronnie;at least by this persons explanation. And back to
the original question; why is it that WGA N is no longer on the MSFT
update servers; if it was functioning correctly? And what part of False
positives; are acceptable?;Hmm wonder what you'd say if; God forbid;it
should happen to you.
And please, don't assume I spread misinformation, as I have provided
the link;which;btw; I also stated;was THAT person's experience.
If you would care to address this further; you need not make blanket
statements. Or be insulting.
Jeff
X
xfile
Hi,
Well done and an excellent job.
Yes, it is indeed the issue should be focused whether people support or
against WGA-N.
Thanks again for your efforts.
Like I said, I'm not going to mention what I think, rather I'm expressing
what some people think is wrong with SPP just FYI since you asked.
[/QUOTE]
Well done and an excellent job.
Yes, it is indeed the issue should be focused whether people support or
against WGA-N.
Thanks again for your efforts.
Saucy Sass said:
Like I said, I'm not going to mention what I think, rather I'm expressing
what some people think is wrong with SPP just FYI since you asked.
[/QUOTE]
R
Ronnie Vernon MVP
Jeff said:
Jeff
Who said anything about Aero? And exactly what was insulting???
Reduced functionality does not inhibit accessing the hard drive. The thread that you cited has nothing to do with this discussion, it's a product activation issue on a beta platform. He is using an older beta version and he also states that he can still use Firefox to access the internet which sure doesn't sound like he "cannot access the hard drive." He did not even say what he meant by that statement. This could have been caused by anything from a dying hard drive to a trojan to a glitch with the activation servers.
What I meant by misinformation was that you took the limited information in that one post and somehow connected it with WGA, which is a totally different process from WPA, and then made assumptions about the result to suit your agenda.
See this post for the same issue with a couple of replies.
Speak to us at Microsoft!:
http://forums.microsoft.com/Genuine/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=877654&SiteID=25
I have no idea what the status of WGA Notify is? I am glad that it's gone though, it was causing way too many problems.
X
xfile
I have no idea what the status of WGA Notify is? I am glad that it's gone
True and confirmed?
Jeff
Who said anything about Aero? And exactly what was insulting???
Reduced functionality does not inhibit accessing the hard drive. The thread
that you cited has nothing to do with this discussion, it's a product
activation issue on a beta platform. He is using an older beta version and
he also states that he can still use Firefox to access the internet which
sure doesn't sound like he "cannot access the hard drive." He did not even
say what he meant by that statement. This could have been caused by anything
from a dying hard drive to a trojan to a glitch with the activation servers.
What I meant by misinformation was that you took the limited information in
that one post and somehow connected it with WGA, which is a totally
different process from WPA, and then made assumptions about the result to
suit your agenda.
See this post for the same issue with a couple of replies.
Speak to us at Microsoft!:
http://forums.microsoft.com/Genuine/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=877654&SiteID=25
I have no idea what the status of WGA Notify is? I am glad that it's gone
though, it was causing way too many problems.
True and confirmed?
Jeff said:
Jeff
Who said anything about Aero? And exactly what was insulting???
Reduced functionality does not inhibit accessing the hard drive. The thread
that you cited has nothing to do with this discussion, it's a product
activation issue on a beta platform. He is using an older beta version and
he also states that he can still use Firefox to access the internet which
sure doesn't sound like he "cannot access the hard drive." He did not even
say what he meant by that statement. This could have been caused by anything
from a dying hard drive to a trojan to a glitch with the activation servers.
What I meant by misinformation was that you took the limited information in
that one post and somehow connected it with WGA, which is a totally
different process from WPA, and then made assumptions about the result to
suit your agenda.
See this post for the same issue with a couple of replies.
Speak to us at Microsoft!:
http://forums.microsoft.com/Genuine/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=877654&SiteID=25
I have no idea what the status of WGA Notify is? I am glad that it's gone
though, it was causing way too many problems.
J
Jeff
To suit my agenda?Ronnie said:
LOL
The original thread was about the eula change-and i said YEAY to that;
one more to go.. (SPP)
Which I then proceeded to explain; by showing an example from
someone-who did report"reduced functionality; albeit from WPA;
essentially is the same"reduced functionality" as SPP, from what I
understand;by also reading the spin from MSFT legal. Which I read before
this thread ever began.
And, I might add; SPP is functionally WGA N-which was not WGA itself;
but WGA Notifications; a application; initiating; and phoning back to MSFT.
Again, SPP is functionally WGA N , not WGA.
Which, itself, will cause the exact same problems as WGA N did.
Agenda,
yup an agenda alright, not to put up with WGA N in Vista, as it has
caused serious problems to legit customers
That was my point Ronnie. Limited info? LOL You yourself have found
links about SPP by posting them earlier in this thread, nope; reduced
functionality is not limited info; at all. It in fact; is reduced
functionality; from WPA or SPP; the same "reduced functionality" Ronnie.
It's not misinformation; at all.
Jeff
J
Jeff
Ronnie said:
Ronnie;
as an addendum
you might want to peruse the- "When WGA attacks" thread also.
Jeff
R
Ronnie Vernon MVP
Jeff said:
I posted a reply to that thread, we'll see if he responds.
What I meant by misinformation, in a previous post, was that people here are taking what posters say as gospel, without waiting to see what the real issue is. This thread is typical with everyone condemning WGA even though the poster said that they had been changing settings on the Licensing Service which could be what caused the problem. There is also a known issue with a couple of third party products tripping the WGA module and causing the error message that he saw.
X
xfile
This thread is typical with everyone condemning WGA even though the poster
For the most part I've heard, people are condemning WGAN, and it's you are
giving misinformation and twisted the difference between WGA and WGAN.
I posted a reply to that thread, we'll see if he responds.
What I meant by misinformation, in a previous post, was that people here are
taking what posters say as gospel, without waiting to see what the real
issue is. This thread is typical with everyone condemning WGA even though
the poster said that they had been changing settings on the Licensing
Service which could be what caused the problem. There is also a known issue
with a couple of third party products tripping the WGA module and causing
the error message that he saw.
For the most part I've heard, people are condemning WGAN, and it's you are
giving misinformation and twisted the difference between WGA and WGAN.
Jeff said:
I posted a reply to that thread, we'll see if he responds.
What I meant by misinformation, in a previous post, was that people here are
taking what posters say as gospel, without waiting to see what the real
issue is. This thread is typical with everyone condemning WGA even though
the poster said that they had been changing settings on the Licensing
Service which could be what caused the problem. There is also a known issue
with a couple of third party products tripping the WGA module and causing
the error message that he saw.
J
Jeff
Ronnie,Ronnie said:
This is becoming tiresome.
#1 This has never been about WGA itself-it's about WGA N/SPP
#2 Misinformation? LOL- If you care to research threads; you'll see I've
been in the thick of this since MSFT tried pushing WGA N down people's
throats; with the MSFT update servers. In this forum;and also in those
WGA venues.
#3 I wonder if you have ever seen "reduced functionality" yourself; as
you are quick to point out the WGA links; but have you actually
experienced what "reduced functionality" does; and not just regurgitate
spin; from MSFT? I have.
#4 No matter how; or why someone errantly gets tagged as not"genuine" be
it from false positives;messed up activation servers; whatever; the
point is; AGAIN; WGA N/SPP is WRONG period.
#4 I wonder what you'de say about the MISINFORMATION that SPP/WGA N
itself; causes; should you have the misfortune of it happening to you?
Done with this, read some of the posts;in those WGA links that you
yourself provide.
Also; see Barry Waltzman's post;in this thread also.
Jeff