A Different Kind of WGA 'Problem' 348
Ed Bott recently attempted to scout out the problems reported in so many horror stories floating around the net relating to Microsoft's WGA. He did experience problems, however, not the ones that you might expect. He intentionally installed a pirated copy of Windows XP to see how the process worked but was unable to get WGA to recognize his computer as pirated. From the article: "I'm reluctantly running a pirated version of Windows and can't get caught no matter how hard I try. But these same people want us to believe that the WGA software they've developed is nearly foolproof. They claim that all but "a fraction of a percent" of those 60 million people who've been denied access to Microsoft updates and downloads are guilty, guilty, guilty. Right."
Who are the developers (Score:5, Insightful)
Are the best and brightest out there the ones that get stuck with this task? I would think it'd be the interns and that developers everyone hates that get the fun task.
I've used products that had good licensing tools. Keys that you enabled online, and enabled a number of users etc. Everytime it seems like it comes out of some smaller software company with small bright teams. I'm guessing in these cases the senior level codes and maybe even the whole team got involved.
Anyone out there have expierence writing key checkers and other piracy related pieces of functionality?
I'm just worried that I'll buy (Score:3, Insightful)
How do ypu prove that you're not a pirate if MS says you are?
Re:Astounding logic (Score:3, Insightful)
It's still a problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
I personally know of at least half a dozen people who have subsequently either a) purchased a legitimate copy of Windows, b) downgraded back to their older, legitimate version or c) bought a Mac, because they lack the technical knowledge to keep up with the WGA arms race.
WGA is certainly going to reduce the level of Windows piracy. Unfortunately for Microsoft, it's going to do so because some people will move away from Windows altogether.
Simple fact is that WGA is utterly transparent and utterly irrelevant to most legitimate users, and even those it isn't, it isn't an issue for very long.
Re:Astounding logic (Score:5, Insightful)
That logic doesn't really follow at all. Anyhow, in tests like these, if you want to diminish false positives, then false negatives usually increase. We should be applauding Microsoft for not being overzealous.
But then again, this is slashdot. MS never gets applause here. At most a murmur of reluctant approval.
but is it activated? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I'm just worried that I'll buy (Score:4, Insightful)
http://www.betanews.com/article/NonLegit_Windows_
Re:Astounding logic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Corporate (Score:3, Insightful)
A friend of mine is actually afraid to update his new xp 64 software for that reason, and it's a shame too. That's a fast computer and he stays on xp 32 since until he gets all the drivers and fixes for xp 64 (he's manually loaded as many as he can), it's going to be fast as molasses.
Re:However what might be happening (Score:3, Insightful)
Or, they might just invalidate it and leave it to the folks in your IT organization to explain why they need to buy retail licenses from now on...
Re:Who are the developers (Score:1, Insightful)
I worked with a guy once who was putting tons of restrictions into his code to 'lock it down'. Then we systematicly showed him how each one could be defeated quite easily. Finaly he threw his hands up and goes 'its good enough you would have to be a computer nerd to know how to get around it', 'but dude all you need to know is 1 nerd'.
Re:A solution to your problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who are the developers (Score:5, Insightful)
I _hate_ crap like that. I use DriveCrypt for encryption (from securstar.de), and it has the most horrific license system I've ever had the displeasure to use. You have to activate your software and lock it to a computer, then if you want to use it on an alternative computer you have to uninstall it on the first, then enter a "deactivation" code on the website, then finally you can reactivate on the new PC. God forbid you should format one of your computers forgetting to deactive your license first. I even had a problem where a new version of the software wouldn't accept the current activation on the system. I had to uninstall the newer version, re-install the older version, uninstall it and de-activate, then install the new one again and activate it. At that point I was like "JFK!", and no, that's not a reference to Kennedy.
Lets face it: People hate activation, and for a good reason. It doesn't stop piracy. It doesn't really reduce piracy either. All it does it cause perpetual headaches to your legally licensed customers. I work on software products and was partly responsible for redesigning our software registration system, which used to also use online activation. We stripped out the 'activation' element and sales didn't drop at all, however the volume of support traffic that we had to handle due to activation issues (the largest type of support incident by far) dropped to almost nothing. Our customers were much happier people.
Secrets to succesful system: 1) Make a good product, 2) Don't extort your customers, 3) Make the registration process simple.
An example of a good registration system: I recently bought Sonar 5 from Cakewalk. It came with a serial code in the DVD sleave, which you punch into Cakewalks' website in exchange for a registration code that can be used perpetually. That's it. Simple. Cakewalk get their registration info, you get to use the software you just paid hundreds of dollars for as you want. Sure, there is an element of trust involved in that, but hey, you just paid a few hundred bucks. Maybe they ought to trust you after that. By comaprison, other similar software I have licenses for is heinous. Cakewalk earned a lot of respect from me because of this.
Pirates will pirate. People with morals who wish to support your work will pay where they can. Respect your customers.
poor logic (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who are the developers (Score:3, Insightful)
If only 5% will pay with activation, still around 5% will pay with simple registration. Why? Because the people who pirate will pirate regardless of which system you use.
Re:predictably -mostly the honest are inconvenienc (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who are the developers (Score:1, Insightful)
Then there's those of us that are tired of the licensing treadmill and are switching over to open-source. Mostly so I don't have to track the blessed licenses anymore.
Re:Corporate (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Astounding logic (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A solution to your problem (Score:2, Insightful)
Lawsuits have little to do with law, and everything to do with money. There is little point in suing a GPL violator because the free software projects don't have the financial justification to pursue legal actions, plus it's hard to defend in court when you're giving your product away for free. Software licenses don't mean shit to the average state judge, unless the software license is in defense of a Fortune-500 company.
Re:Sonny Bono owns you (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, man. Where do you get this shit? Been sucking at the teat of the RIAA for too long?
Re:Who are the developers (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that there are torrents of every single starforce game ever around, and they all come with either cracks or mini-images, and there are at least a dozen competing "anti-starforce" tools.
Starforce is sold as being impossible to break. In the end, it's not any better than anything else.
Re:However what might be happening (Score:5, Insightful)
>pirate key or take a non-volume copy of XP and install it on more
>systems than you are allowed to.
Nope. That's what you need to trigger it.
To test it, you take most obscure cases of license violation plus most convoluted cases of legal use.
And then as result the test shows WGA is hopelessly broken.