WGA Under Vista SP1 Is Kinder and Nags More

DaMan writes in with a ZDNet blog entry on Windows Genuine Advantage under Vista SP1. It seems that the draconian features present in Vista RTM have been replaced by nag screens and annoyances such as repeatedly changing the desktop background to black. But WGA no longer turns off Aero and ReadyBoost or logs you out after an hour."

nag screens and annoyances

Sounds to me like they just made WGA consistent with the rest of the OS.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

Sounds to me like they just made WGA consistent with the rest of the OS.

Isn't spyware (forget that lawyer made up term) something:

1) Installs itself with false promises , e.g. "We will make your internet and system faster with better features!"
2) Steals private data which you would normally NEVER provide if you had a chance to think twice.
3) Tortures your user experience and break your system if you ever attempt to get rid of it?

So, by definition, WGA enabled Windows is spyware and I don't blame MS for it. There is a company who makes easier, faster, better products and they got significant market share at least on portables now. It is not like "Install Linux and ./configure" anymore. Also user friendly distros like Ubuntu exists.

If considerable amount of MS customers got rid of it or simply rejected using Windows only because of WGA, you would see WGA fade away in weeks, no less.

I was using Windows back in 2002-2003 era and I can't see a reason why WGA or Customer Experience service isn't considered plain spyware.

Of course if you act like a lemming, you will be treated like a lemming. After OS X, Intel Switch which made Mac very credible thanks to popularithy, distros like Ubuntu... Why do we blame MS anymore? It is end user/customer to blame. Let them sit with their WGA bugging OS who treats them as a thief.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

I don't mind if windows verifies itself with Microsoft. Does that make me a sheep? It's an expensive product and they want to ensure people aren't pirating it. My copy is legit, so why should I resent that? I'm not sure what 'personal information' they will be getting from me, my hard drive serial number maybe? hardly my bank account details.
Microsoft are no more 'treating their customers like thieves' than a store that has security tags on the clothes and a scanner by each exit. Amazingly, only the shoplifters get bent out of shape about those.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

Microsoft are no more 'treating their customers like thieves' than a store that has security tags on the clothes and a scanner by each exit. Amazingly, only the shoplifters get bent out of shape about those.

Once I leave the store, I don't have to check in with the store owner when I want to use the product I already paid for.
I'm against software piracy. But I'm also against intrusive control mechanisms that will annoy legitimate users.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

Nobody wants to feel that an expensive piece of software they paid for (probably a tool they rely on for business) could stop working if someone remotely flicks a switch.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

You personally have had trouble with a legally purchased copy of Windows Vista and WGA? Or are you just parroting the vocal minority because that's the slashdot way?

I called the system "unacceptable". That means I don't use Windows, because I don't like the strings attached, regardless of how "transparent" people want to claim it is.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

I personally know of two incidents of legal Windows XP (not Vista) installations failing WGA tests. Google it, it seems to be not unusual. Now, I freely admit that I'm a Linux slut, but I can objectively say that WGA will flag a legal system as counterfeit. And this was not after some hardware change. One is a neighbor, who still has her original disk, and hasn't pulled the computer out from under the desk in maybe four years. The other is family.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

"Why wouldn't you be able to comply with the request? Is your mouse and keyboard broken? How hard is it to hit "Validate"?"

From Iraq? Where my personal notebook has no connectivity? (I'm posting from my work machine, of course.) Not to mention where I'm only allowed 15 minute phone calls, so sitting on hold with their Indian call-center is out of the question?

It's pretty damn fucking hard to "validate" the software I own. So, I had to borrow a pirated version from a friend just to get my system working correctly. Brilliant strategy, Microsoft... "Let's force our legitimate customers to run pirated versions of our software so they see that there's really no point in buying it in the future!"

Re:nag screens and annoyances

WGA is Microsoft securing their product. How do you suggest it figure out who stole it and who didn't without bothering you but still preventing pirates from getting their product for free?

Because you know pirates can't crack the software to circumvent WGA or anything like that. WGA only annoys the legit-user, pirates just shut it off.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

I don't mind if Windows calls home ONCE, as I install it, to verify.

But WGA is, to use your security tag analogy, as if they leave the tag on after
you buy the clothes, and regularly sweep your home to ensure you did not lend
out any of your clothes to other people.

But verifying that you have the genuine article on each installation is
perfectly agreeable.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

WGA should at least give the option to back up its state of that its activated to a certain machine, similar to how one in XP can back up the wpa.bak and wpa.dbl files. Then, in case the machine has to be reinstalled again, Windows can prompt for a copy of these files, and not have to ask for a CD key on future installs.

Just use phone activation. The installation ID calculated by Windows is the same even across formats, which means the phone confirmation ID is reusable. Just activate by phone once and you are free to reuse the confirmation ID every time you reinstall after that, no further verification by Microsoft required. Note that this applies only to Vista and is different from XP, where the installation ID included a random salt and was unique to each installation.

Another possibility, but this is a can of worms, is using a TPM chip to store a certificate. Once the machine is activated to use a certain edition and OS, a certificate is stored in the TPM, similar to how Apple stores a certificate for MacOS. Then, on subsequent installs, the OS just checks to see if its licensed via the TPM for that feature set, and goes on its merry way, never requiring activation again.

This is basically how it works today for preinstalled copies of Windows from large OEM's (Dell, HP, etc.). The computer manufacturer puts a specific string in the BIOS which is verified by Windows. If an OEM copy of Windows is used, activation is bypassed and no need for communication with Microsoft is ever required. It's only available from large OEM's because Microsoft must trust the OEM to correctly account for each computer sold and pay the appropriate license fee. This technology is referred to as SLP, or System Locked Preinstallation, and dates back to Windows XP.

Expensive product?

"It's an expensive product"

It's only an expensive product because people have tricked themselves into believing there are no alternatives.

Windows 3.1 was $130 and commonly discounted to $80. That was for the whole OS, not split up so you have 4 different versions. The top price was $80. The cost was low because Microsoft had competition.

Now that the installed based is two orders of magnitude greater, the price should be cheaper or maybe the same. Even the cost of Apple's computers dropped significantly. But for MS Windows, the cost doubled or tripled. All because consumers refuse to use alternatives. We're our own worst enemy.

So this argument is an ironic one in that once Microsoft made Windows the most expensive piece of software on your computer, they had to put in place lots of things to "protect" it against people who didn't get the message that you pay whatever Microsoft wants for an operating system.

In any event, this argument misses the point. WGA was put in place because Microsoft has no more market-share to get. They only have two place to get more money... charging more money for Windows, and reducing the amount of piracy. So WGA has been designed solely to reduce piracy rates of windows a few percentage points.

Irony again! To make another few million dolalrs, MS decided to irritate every customer with new types of monthly checks to make sure you're "Genuine".

And I wonder if pirates who know what they're doing are bothered by WGA in the least?

Re:Expensive product?

It's only an expensive product because people have tricked themselves into believing there are no alternatives.

It's not an expensive product. Especially for the vast majority of people, who get it "free".

Windows 3.1 was $130 and commonly discounted to $80. That was for the whole OS, not split up so you have 4 different versions. The top price was $80. The cost was low because Microsoft had competition.

Ignoring for a second just how much more functionality Vista delivers over Windows 3.1, you need to a) include the price of DOS, and b) account for inflation. Windows 3.1 ("Full Version" retailed at US$150. I couldn't find a price for DOS 5.0 in 1991 with a cursory search, so I'll estimate it at about US$50.

US$200 in 1992, is worth about US$300 today. Looking at Microsoft's site, we see that Vista Home Premium ("Full Version") is US$239. Heck, even if you leave DOS out completely, US$150 inflates to US$225, only a hair cheaper.

Now that the installed based is two orders of magnitude greater, the price should be cheaper or maybe the same. Even the cost of Apple's computers dropped significantly. But for MS Windows, the cost doubled or tripled.

Utter crap. It's actually less (or, at worst, basically the same). Take into account the additional functionality (media player, movie maker, networking, web browser, media centre, etc) and it's massively cheaper. It's certainly not within a bull's roar of having "doubled or tripled".

All you people who keep saying Windows is getting more expensive over time are either a) stupid (because you haven't bothered to actually check), or b) liars (because you have worked it out and chose to ignore what you found). But, then again, 99% of the criticism levelled at Vista falls into the same cateogories, so its to be expected.

Re:Expensive product?

Wiat wait, are you actually claiming that vista is more functional than Windows 3.1?

Wait, wait. Are you actually claiming that Windows 3.1 is more functional than Vista ? Could you list some examples ?

When your operating system somehow manages to reverse Rx Tx signals, there is a problem...

It can't.

Additionally, have you used a Mac?

Extensively. I own two of them.

OsX comes with a huge software set that at the very least, rivals the software set that comes with Microsoft Windows.
And as such the price should be comparable, but its not. as shown below, Mac OS-X pricing is far superior to vista pricing.

All retail copies of Mac OS X are priced as upgrades. Therefore, the only valid comparison to Vista is upgrade pricing. Using that, "Vista Home Premium" is both quite comparable, and more functional (eg: Media Centre).

Additionally take into Account that OS-X has a linux core at heart, and you prove that the Microsoft Windows Alternative is a joke.

Ah, as I suspected, you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Re:nag screens and annoyances

Hey, I paid for Vista too. Twice, so far, WGA has gone fubar on me. I don't know why -- I didn't change hardware or anything. Th first time, while talking to tech support in Bangalore, I went through one of the most frustrating experiences ever with a computer company where the woman was insisting there were options on my screen that didn't exist. I'd read the list of options, and she'd say "No, sir, use the other option" (this dance repeated four times before she transfered me to a department that was not answering their phone). I was unable to get the system working until the next day, when that department re-opened, and someone could give me what he called a "onetime reauthorization code."

The second time, a few weeks later, the problem returned. Tech support walked me through it again. I used the "MGADiag" program that told me I was using a genuine copy, meanwhile WGA popups were calling me a thief and shutting me down. Again, it took hours on the phone to resolve.

So far, it's been OK since that second episode. But I'm out about four hours of phone time, and one evening of no Windows computer. As I said to the tech support people - if I had just been dishonest and gotten a cracked version, I wouldn't have had those problems. Why they were insistent on punishing their legit customers, I don't know.

My Mac OS and Linux machines may have their annoyances too, but they have never called me "thief!"

Can I upgrade?

Does anyone know if you can upgrade to SP1 if your Vista doesn't pass WGA? This one hour automatic logout is really starting to an

Re:Can I upgrade?

Kudo's to Microsoft though: it appears they at least submit the message you were trying to type to /. before truly shutting down.

A kinder Writers Guild of America ?

Is this part of the strike settlement ? I hope the writers vote it down - I don't want any TV writers nagging me !

My Advantage

I got around not having a valid registration of vista: I select the NI (not installed) Mode. This mode comes with every non registered version of vista, but is not well known. The benefits are that you get unlimited access to the web and your files, your computer runs faster, your software choices are unlimited, and you don't have to put up with annoying adware. Since I've switched to NI mode, I've been more productive and had more time to spend on ./ because I spend less time dealing with the vista bugs.

Kinda like my parents

So it looks like Vista goes from abusive-dad mode to well-meaning-but-annoying-mom mode. No thanks, I'm still staying with the grandparents.

That's nice, but...

As someone who has no use for Vista (and won't see it at work for at least a year due to the fact that his primary desktop there runs Fedora Core 8), I honestly couldn't care less what MSFT does with the thing.

Besides, it only shows one of these factors, none of which are good:

• Windows is an empire built on 'six floppies and xcopy'. I'm very willing to wager that the majority of folks (especially home users) who used Windows 3.1, got it "from a friend" on six copied floppies (seven w/ print drivers). MSFT probably realized this and is going back to their, err, 'viral' roots.
• They're desperate to get Vista adoption picked up faster (which ties in with the previous bullet, but kinda deserves its own)
• WGA is still broken badly enough that they didn't want to alienate the legit users who got trapped any further

In either case, none of this addresses the underlying bloat, bugs, and obviously creaking NT architecture, on an OS version that was allegedly rebuilt from the ground up. With most corporate folks likely holding off now for "Windows 7", and home users nursing XP. Vista likely won't make much difference now in either case...

/P

You May Be a Victim of Software Counterfeiting

Nice popup window. Wait, who's the victim again?

Good

I've never ceased to be amazed about how many people that run Windows deal quite happily with 1000 popups from various spyware that's installed over the years, completely oblivious to the fact that this behaviour is very non-standard. Just as long as they can read their emails, chat to friends, and open Word and Excel they're happy.

This will be just another of those popups that gets closed without a second thought.

Re:desktop to black?

If they were serious about WGA they'd just set the background to goatse.jpg

Re:desktop to black?

And the answer would invariably be: "Yes it is ugly, but does it run Linux?"