Sometimes, you come across news items that make you go “eh…?” This is definitely one of them: Microsoft has announced a new anti-piracy update for Windows 7 that phones home every 90 days to check for new activation cracks, but the update is entirely optional – which kind of makes me wonder about the point.
For Windows 7, Windows Genuine Advantage was renamed to Windows Activation Technologies, and it is this set of technologies that will be updated coming February 16. The update will “detect more than 70 known and potentially dangerous activation exploits”, and “will determine whether Windows 7 installed on a PC is genuine and will better protect customers’ PCs by making sure that the integrity of key licensing components remains intact”.
Since the number and type of activation cracks out there change all the time, the update will phone home every 90 days to gain information on newly discovered activation exploits (Microsoft promises the information sent does not contain any personally identifiable information). Users with genuine copies of Windows 7 will see nothing – the update runs in the background. Users of a non-genuine copy of Windows 7, however, will get a dialog presenting them with options to fix the issue.
Contrary to earlier versions of Windows, however, there will be no reduced functionality mode. The desktop will switch to a plain desktop, and a reminder will be displayed every now and then. Users’ files, applications, shortcuts, whatever, will remain intact and usable.
It will be made available to all Windows 7 Home Premium, Professional, Ultimate, and Enterprise edition users starting February 16 from Microsoft.com/Genuine, and from the download centre the day after. Later this month, it will appear on windows Update, tagged as “Important” – but still optional.
This is supposed to be an anti-piracy thing, but the effectiveness of it all is, well, laughable, at best. The update is entirely optional, and if, perchance, you were to accidentally install it anyway, you can uninstall the update and be on your merry way. In other words: you’re free to not install it, which makes the update completely pointless and a waste of time.
This is for the benefit of consumers who get duped by dodgy retailers installing pirate copies.
I welcome this move by Microsoft, I don’t like to have to tell users that they got conned.
I agree, and with that lawsuit over WGA finally behind them, I can understand why they are being cautious.
I have to agree this time. I serviced a friend’s computer once, she’d had it repaired at a computer shop that is consequently no longer in business. The computer shop put a pirated copy of XP on there, and didn’t even do a good job of it. Remember the FCKGW key? That’s what they used. It was full of malware largely because she couldn’t get updates and didn’t know about it. Yes, that’s right, she was still on straight XP with no service packs.
That’s what this update is designed to stop. People who do pirate their windows on their own, while I do not condone illegally using software you don’t own, are going to be smart enough not to install this update. Even if it was required, it’d be easy enough to avoid it if you know what you’re doing. This will help out the people who got a pirated Windows unknowingly, either from a dodgy retailer or a friend or whatever.
Ah, good o’l FCKGW, and its best friend TBBBG!
I’m not sure I’d even really call that piracy, except for the technicality of it. It almost sounds like they maybe had to reinstall the machine to ‘repair’ it (unless part of the repair was to upgrade it from something else).
I have, on several occasions, been forced to reinstall an entire machine for someone (due to HD failure, etc.) only to find out they don’t have any restore CDs or likewise. This leaves me in a tricky situation, and I then have to discuss with the owner of the computer what their options are (if you get my meaning).
What, a new copy of Windows, or Ubuntu?
Well, if it is a name brand machine, the windows key is stuck right to the outside of the machine, along with which version it is. Which means you can re-install and just use that key. No need to purchase a new copy of windows, as that is perfectly legal to do.
XP and newer disks have been coded to specific serial numbers. Unless you have the generation of disk image or original disk, that serial number sticker on the case may be of no use. I’ve had to use the fck’d disk to do the base install, then a utility to replace it with the customer’s valid serial number, then go get updates.
Interesting to know. I have never run into that problem in all the years since XP came out. I’ll keep it in mind if I do see it.
Nah, there are just a few disk/key combinations. Most repair shops (those worth their salt) know what they are and have disk images for the ones that you see frequently…
I recall the COA (certificate of authenticity only, aka OEM) version is the usual for the sticker on the case, then there was the retail box, and the infamous corporate site license keys which were so popular before WGA. There were a couple others as well, but not common.
Anyone tech who installs a corporate key on a box with a sticker is a moron. and yes, I’ve seen it a good number of times.
Except in that case they would have asked. This was well past the time of SP2’s release and they knowingly installed with a pirated key that wouldn’t have even been valid for sp1 let alone sp2. They didn’t inform anyone of this either. I’d call that dodgy for sure.
In either case, that particular place no longer exists. Perhaps they got caught? By the time I discovered this they were already gone.
Edited 2010-02-11 22:19 UTC
BTW, pirated copies of Windows XP *do* still support automatic updates. You just can’t use the windows update website any longer, last I checked.
But you can’t install SPs—they check. edit: Oh, and WMP11.
Edited 2010-02-11 22:24 UTC
There is a benefit to it then!
Sure, but there’s only so far you can go without the service packs and it wasn’t far enough. That key didn’t work at all for sp1. That was very well known. So she got updates up to a point but no further, which translated to being about two years behind in updates. It wasn’t pretty, putting it mildly.
The consumers get conned anyway, even if they get a genuine copy.
Edited for typos.
Edited 2010-02-11 22:29 UTC
There’s a big problem on ebay with people selling computers with pirated copies of Windows. If a seller repeatedly gets complaints then he’ll get banned.
I know some people would like all activation features removed but I also remember how common casual piracy was in the Windows 98 days.
The other reason this may be optional is to reduce false positives. Someone I knew had a legit XP machine and hadn’t been opened yet repeatedly went false positive. I eventually cracked it after getting tired of making phone calls.
So it looks like they are going with a more passive approach and focusing on white box and used sales. They probably also want a lot of the pirates on XP to upgrade for security reasons. A lot of pirates in the third world have old copies of XP with updates turned off (shudder).
Edited 2010-02-12 00:02 UTC
Neither my car, nor my house, nor any of my other possessions accuse me of having stolen them every 90 days.
Well… your car may not accuse you of stealing it, but if it has OnStar, and the proper authorities decide it’s a stolen vehicle, it won’t be long before they find it (and you).
Neither your car, nor your house, has anything like the number of terrific anti-features that Windows does!
http://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2007/fall/antifeatures/
http://www.geekzone.co.nz/foobar/6207
http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/development/8FC32A7B611E877ACC2…
Edited 2010-02-11 22:29 UTC
That link is useless, it’s a guy complaining about crap that went down over 14 years ago, then goes on to spout vague crap about drm, popups and NT’s “predatory pricing” NT????. Holy gods, get over it.
The wonderful thing is that today, because of ongoing innovation, there are ever more wonderful anti-features in contemporary versions of Windows.
Windows 7 starter is a marvel at this … all that software already delivered to your machine but disabled so you can’t run it. This is such a brilliant, new and innovative anti-feature that AFAIK Microsoft have patented it.
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/19/1931249
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/06/06/microsoft_dmp_patent_applic…
Yep, here it is:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d…
“Restricted software and hardware usage on a computer”
Fantatsic, hey!
This is what people pay Microsoft for!
Apple are starting to compete in this market as well, but Linux just doesn’t have any of this category of software at all.
Edited 2010-02-12 01:01 UTC
Some things never change. Lemur2, you are exactly like Brett Favre, just never willing to give up (those here in North America will know who I am talking about). I loved the Super Bowl commercial with him accepting the 2020 MVP award saying something like “maybe I should just retire…..”. Yes, in 2020 Lemur2 will still be ranting about the evils of Windows, yet never truly accepting or explaining why Linux will still have 1% desktop OS market share.
Now you are just trying to deflect the issue. Seriously, I mean it, you can cheerlead for Linux all you like, but Linux is just about a complete non-starter in this anti-feature field of software.
Aside from the almost-complete lack of third party anti-user-malware written for Linux, I mean, just look at the poor feature list for most of the Linux distributions themselves:
– An utter lack of single-platform exclusivity,
– No activation codes or CD keys, no anti-piracy,
– No spyware or phone-home of any kind,
– No EULAs,
– No time-limited trialware, or nagware,
– No software license monitors,
– No CALs,
– No backdoors or killswitches,
– No DRM,
– The browser and media player are not irremoveable,
– Limited to a mundane, standard selection of non-exclusive data formats and protocols,
– No prohibition of re-distribution, and
– No “genuine advantage”.
Well, that last one isn’t quite true, there is a Linux Genuine Advantage, but it is not included by default, you have to download it and install it separately, from here:
http://www.linuxgenuineadvantage.org
Windows has all of the above list well covered. Also, with most Linux distributions there is no virus scanner running, none at all! When it comes to software updates … in Linux there is often only the one updater. In Windows you can perhaps get a dozen or so running!
So, as you can see, Windows is a hands-down winner in this software category.
Americans are well ahead of the rest of the world here, because Windows has far greater coverage of that market than it does the rest of the world. Apparently non-American peoples just aren’t as good at seeing the reasons to use Windows.
Edited 2010-02-12 02:25 UTC
The problem with twats like you is that you can rant on and list everything that you find wrong with Windows, you fail to realize how much this says about Linux. It should be the biggest red flag in the world when your beloved OS can’t get above a measly 1% over something this horrible? What the f**k does that have to say about desktop Linux? Just give it up already, Linux will NEVER compete on the desktop, 99% of us with more than two working braincells long ago figured out this is not the OS’s strength but it’s Achilles heal.
You want to whine, cry, lay blame, and make idiotic excuses as to why the markets are the way they are. I merely will respond to say look at the CPU market over the past 20 years with Intel/Cyrix/AMD. That should educate enough to know why products succeed and fail, and if you can’t figure out why Cyrix failed and AMD broke through, then you will NEVER in a thousand years understand why Linux on the desktop will continue to fail year in and year out….and why you will still be crying like a baby in 2020
As I have been trying to say, you are absolutely correct. Those of us with a few more than just two braincells, maybe even as many as six braincells for some of us, can easily see why we should stick with the current sitauation where people should only be able to buy Windows in shops, so that they can enjoy the plethora of anti-features that their money can buy.
All of those unfortunates burdened with a hyper-abundance of braincells (i.e. more than say six), and who are needlessly bothered with things like an accurate accounting, can suffer an utter lack of anti-features.
http://blog.linuxtoday.com/blog/2009/05/1-linux-market.html
Edited 2010-02-12 04:35 UTC
Hmm, what important things have we all learned from this discussion? SSA2204 hates Linux and resorts to name calling, Lemur 2 hates Windows… wow, what an unbelievably enlightening thread this has been.
Seriously, can you people keep your bloody Linux debates confined to stories where they are relevant? I like Linux, I use it, but this article has nothing at all to do with Linux. I almost feel like I’m looking at Slashdot here.
Correction, I actually like and use Linux a hell of a lot (though not as a desktop OS). My problem is not with Linux, but rather the twat Linux fanboys that incessantly troll through every god damn freaking post about Windows. We never have and never will have a decent comment section where discussions can take place so long as trolls like Lemur2 are allowed posting privileges in threads like this. It is a god damn guarantee that he will do everything to derail every post about Windows with his idiotic Wiki links obsessing about every and all things Microsoft.
You have been the one feeding him rather than ignoring the posts and moving on to threads that do discus topics relevant to the article.
Ah, I apologize then. Personally, I don’t give a crap what os others use. I use what works for me and yes, I do use desktop Linux a great deal. The important thing imho is data interoperability, not who uses what os. If file formats are open, being locked to one os becomes irrelevant. Of course, that’s why we’ll likely never see that fully happen.
The best thing you can do with a fanboy is ignore them. No matter what you say, they’ll come back at you. You only encourage them by arguing. It’s like trying to argue philosophy with a religious fundamentalist, the harder you push the thicker the brick wall gets.
So your considering the 1% market share measurement based on retail channels and inflated MS license figures as a valid measurement? I may not agree with everything Lemur has to say but I find it laughable that you’d call retail market share figures valid outside of a sales staff meeting.
The distributions for FOSS platforms are far more broad than simply counting retail units passing through doors.
What’s a twat?
Linux on the desktop is a non-starter, period. Don’t get me wrong: I like Linux a lot. I coded on it throughout grad school, and found it to be a great server platform. It has seen some moderate success on netbooks. Google is doing some interesting work with Linux for their upcoming Chrome OS. But unless and until Chrome OS takes off, desktop Linux is dead. Stick a fork in it. It will remain a great resource for technologists/hobbyists, but it won’t see broad market adoption. Ever. So, please, do all of us a favor and stop making comparisons between Windows and Linux, because they aren’t even in the same ballpark, let alone the same city. Everything you say is a moot point.
I know this is a troll, and if your point is that Linux does a better job in a “consumer rights” sense, it would be hard for anyone to argue with that.
For the purposes of discussion though, I think some of your list is a bit off 😉
I know codeweavers offers a trial version that requires a CD key, and JetBrains products have keys, trials, and will check your network for duplicate installations. I’m sure there are more, those are just two that I have run into.
http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_rha_eula.html
Tell that to Tivo or the Android team 😉
Not that linus has a problem with DRM http://www.linuxtoday.com/developer/2003042401126OSKNLL
They aren’t in windows either. Removing the libraries is the hard part.
Well, depending on where you live, there is no legal way to play DVDs, BluRays, or h264 (all of which are de facto standards). All of those are available out of the box in Win7, DVDs and h264 were on Vista, and while they weren’t in the box in XP, you could at least buy apps relatively cheaply that did the job.
Again, not saying that you aren’t right in a general sort of way. Just that you aren’t right about those specific points.
lemur2, I just have to say this, as off-topic as it is: I really love Linux, I love open-source, I really do hope Linux will become more mainstream some day in the future….BUT, YOU are really f*cking annoying and sound like a freaking broken record! Even when the discussion at hand is about _WINDOWS_ you pop in there and start frothing about Linux like a rabid troglodyte and your incessant whining about Windows and Windows users is really pissing people off.
Can’t you please, for heavens sake, either leave your Linux comments to an article about Linux, or be quiet?
This lady speaks the truth!
The topic of this thread is actually about an anti-feature of Windows. It is a re-naming of WGA (now to be called WAT, for Windows Activation Technologies), and then combining it with phone-home anti-privacy, in the name of anti-piracy. Strangely enough, at this time this particular Windows anti-feature has apparently been made opt-in for end users, which rather paradoxically seems to negate the entire purpose of the anti-feature in the first place.
Unlike you, I am entirely on topic here.
Here is an aware Windows user reaction to this anti-feature:
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000681.html
This is typical of what real people actually think about anti-features.
Edited 2010-02-12 10:06 UTC
No you f–king twat, the topic is regarding an issue for Windows users, to which you are not. To which you are thus just being your usual trolling no f–king life self. Good lord, seek therapy.
Tetchy, aren’t you?
So tell me, can you answer Lauren Weinstein’s question … who owns your PC?
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000681.html
Lauren is a Windows user. I think she asks a very genuine question.
PS: here is a hint for you … I’m not trolling here. My POV will always be … “what is best for the user”? It is that simple. This is not a good thing for users.
Edited 2010-02-12 13:13 UTC
If people would calm down a bit, it could be a great discussion about DRM.
Lauren’s article shows a real nativity about the world that she lives in. Her points are:
– MS is treating this like a benefit
She is right that it is bullshit, that should be fairly obvious to anybody who even remotely understands what it does.
– MS can degrade any system at any time (presumably false positives), and it is an invasion of privacy to do these checks
Ok, so if you walk into a department store, first thing that happens is you walk through detectors, which will fairly regularly have false positives. At which point you will be taken aside and searched, or you will have to wait for the cops who will do it themselves.
You then walk into the store, and start shopping. Every minute you are in there, you are being observed by cameras. If you do something that is deemed “suspicious”, you will be taken aside and searched, or you will have to wait for the cops who will do it themselves.
Finally you have one more pass through the detectors (and possibly a security guy at the door, depending on the store), and finally you leave.
That is pretty damn invasive. The reason that people don’t care so much is because merchants know that if they harass legitimate customers too much, they won’t shop at their store anymore. So they try to make the monitoring as unobtrusive as possible, and try to put the suspicion threshold at a point where false positives are at an acceptable amount. As long as they aren’t getting harassed, people really don’t even think about it.
My question is how is buying a CD at HMV any different then something like this? (other then you have to make a call instead of getting searched) People act like there is something fundamentally wrong with DRM on computers, and then turn around and blithely ignore very similar situations as they go through their daily lives.
That is obvious. What you are asking is who owns the copy of windows you licensed? The publisher. Just like every other piece of software (almost), film, or literature published in the last century or so. When it comes to GPL software, there is still an owner. He may give you more rights then other owners, but that doesn’t remove the ownership. The only way something like this lacks ownership is if it is put in the public domain (and no, the GPL is not in the public domain)
So again, restrictive licenses are a part of daily life (unless you do not read, listen to, or watch anything done since the 40s) Hell, even this comment is my property.
If you don’t have a problem with video, writing, or any sort of brick and morter consumer experience, then discussion about these issues when it comes to technology should be around how invasive these things are, not about whether or not they should be there in any form. As an example, personally, I am fine with DVDs, BluRay restrictions is where I draw the line on invasive DRM when it comes to movies. By contrast, I have only ever had to call MS about an activation issue once, it went quickly and smoothly. I have probably been searched in stores maybe half a dozen times in my life, and found those much more invasive. I don’t care if Windows phones home every time I boot the machine, so long as I don’t end up with an unusable product I paid for.
If these are truly issues you care about, then raging against their application in technology is silly and short sighted. You are swinging at branches while the roots are present in every aspect of our society.
The point about shopping brings up some interesting comparisons. Sure, I’m scanned on my way in and out of the store. A false positive may invite store security or the police for a more detailed inspection. I’m on camera while in the store. The catch is that this all happens within the private property of the store owner.
With Windows, the shopper is entering my private property (the hardware). Yet, I am still the one being told I need to be scanned, submit to searches and remain on camera at all times during that software’s visit. The EULA borders as closely on extortion as it legally can; “if you do not accept this long list of invasive demands and removal of consumer rights provided by copyright then Tony here will cut you off from your personal data and third party software. Do you want to agree to our terms or wake up with a smashed monitory in your bed?”
Would it be acceptable for someone to walk into your home, go through your cub-bards and belongings and wear a head mounted cam to record all video and audio during there visit? Should your building contractor retain this right just because they happened to build the home. Should the real-estate company retain this right because they happen to sell you the home? In the end, you can’t take it with you so chances are good that your only renting it for the duration of your lifespan.
In a store, one can kick a customer out for not disabling all video recording devices.
Why is this suddenly acceptable because the private property the visitor is entering happens to be my computer hardware instead of my store front?
(Actually, if MS really wanted to stop copyright infringement by home users and piracy by organized crime, they’d review the pricing structure rather than add more stick to prop up there high margins. Prohibition won’t reduce copyright any more than it has reduced drug use and related crime.)
So the line you are drawing seems to be that its acceptable around the time of purchase, but its not acceptable after the fact, due to the invasion of privacy. The thing is, this isn’t a mall guard coming in and rooting around. Windows isn’t reading your documents, it is looking for very specific files in specific locations, which IMO is as invasive to privacy as a virus scanner.
“acceptable around the time of purchase, but its not acceptable after the fact”
I don’t really think malware is acceptable at the time of purchase or after the fact. That is essentially what the methods chiefly employed by Microsoft amount too so far. Win98’s sending audits back to Microsoft was one of the more agregeous but WGA force fed as a critical update (critical only for MS interests) wasn’t much better and further treated law abiding consumers as criminals (guilty until proven innocent). The only thing that makes this dial-hope malware more acceptable is that it’s still optional; we’ll see if that changes in the future or not. If from any other company, it would be recognized clearly as malware but because the brand on the platform matches the brand on the malware; consumers accept it.
I still maintain that Microsoft could do far more through company policy if they really wanted to reduce copyright infringement. Even if they had to rely on technological mechanisms, they have some of the smartest developers in the world and could device a better implementation.
I’m assuming you meant in the context of the software rather then that of the given store and home examples though. If not, I’m not sure how the line between you being watched as a visitor on private property versus being watched by a visitor on your private property could be less clear.
Back to software, Adobe is another company that is rather guilty of using malware against consumers. They make use of a method which writes data within the boot sector of the drive. This destroys dualboot systems as it overwrites part of the boot loader. Again, they’ve chosen what is easiest for them at the destrutive expense of the computer owner. Somehow, this use of malware is acceptable because the brand is recognized. It’s actually a licensed “technology” used by other companies also.
From someone usually well-informed, I expected a bit more
.
The above is nonsense. It sure is what content providers want you to believe, but it’s not the truth according to copyright law in any country that I know of. I most certainly own my CDs. I most certainly own my DVDs. I most certainly own my books.
What I do NOT own, however, is the copyright to those books. A book is most certainly mine, and not licensed. However, law grants a monopoly to the rightsholder when it comes to distribution, with the logical exception being that you always have the right to resell or give away the book.
Heck, you may even modify the book, scribble notes in the margins, rip pages out, or play kinky games with it with your wife (or husband, or both – I’m Dutch after all).
If EULAs didn’t exist, software would fall under the exact same category as a book. Difficulty arose, however, because running a program requires you to make copies. Software makers are trying to argue that you NEED the EULA, since it contains the necessary permissions to do so. What they fail to mention, however, is that a special exemption has already been added to copyright law for the sole purpose of allowing you to make copies of software in order to run it.
So, we’re now seeing a shift in the software world, where instead of playing the EULA-is-a-copyright-exemption drum, software makers are now slithering the idea into common parlance that software != book, but something you loan from them. EULA = loan contract.
I say they can all go fcuk themselves. I’ll honour your EULA the moment they start asking me to sign it properly before starting the rental period. That may sound cumbersome, but it’s completely normal, and we do it regularly already: mobile phone contracts. Ordering a mobile contract in The Netherlands requires that you sign several documents properly.
If software makers want to rent their crap – that’s fine, their IP, their call – but then they’ll have to play by the book.
Sorry, got a little carried away there. Carry on.
You own the CD that the software came on, not the software itself, just like you own the ink and paper on your book, but not the book itself.
You are right about the difference between copyright and license, but this conversation is about enforcing copyright. We aren’t talking about installing OSX on generic hardware, we are talking about installing software from a copy that was created in violation of the copyright.
You own the CD that the software came on, not the software itself, just like you own the ink and paper on your book, but not the book itself.
You don’t quite grasp the concept between owning something and having the copyright ownership to something. Or atleast it looks like you don’t. Of course, how copyright ownership and owning something are handled and viewed depends on where you live and as such there is no universal truth about these things.
But let’s see; in most European countries you do own the exact copy of whatever you’ve bought. You can do anything you wish with it as long as you don’t break copyright law, and copyright law says you are not allowed to spread copies of or parts of the product you own without copyright owner’s agreement. But now, you CAN however copy the book or parts of it for your own use, you can write in it, you can remove parts of it etc and you cannot be charged for anything. The same applies to the software you bought; you can write in it, you can remove parts of it, you can modify it, you can copy it etc, as long as you don’t spread any of those outside your own domain as that’d again be a breach of copyright law.
Dammit! Will someone tell me what a TWAT IS?! Bunch of pricks.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=twat
LOL! Thank you… I was just being a jerk pointing out the use of questionable language on the site.
The DMP article at the Reg has nothing to do with Windows, and is not anticonsumer, it’s pro consumer. It is a method of turning of devices in places that they shouldn’t be used, say a cell phone in a hospital or a Movie Theatre.
Sounds fricking great to me.
THe second article is talking about restricting software, but in a business setting, you absolutely want to control the software that get installed on your employees computers. That’s not a feature for consumers, true, but it is a feature for business.
The DRM exists in Windows not because MS wants it there, but the Content providers want it there to control their customers. If MS did not put the DRM in windows to control HDMI and Blueray processing, YOU WOULDN’T BE ABLE TO DO THOSE THINGS AT ALL! Do you think MS wanted to do all that extra work? I don’t.
Sorry for yelling, but your rhetoric is getting a bit old.
Another tetchy one.
There are a multitude of anti-features built in to Windows, it is almost the essential fabric of the OS, to distrust its very users. You won’t be able to defend all of the myriad anti-user anti-features and stay sane. Trust me. Even die-hard Windows supporters are beginning to see this.
95% of the (windows) users don’t go and look into so-called anti-features, they don’t care, the OS is doing its job.
Those 5% that do prolly don’t care either, or they wouldn’t use the system. I know such features are here, but I’m not disrupted nor am I unwilling to comply to them, because the alternatives provide such crappy desktop experience (stomped some dreams there sorry). There’s a reason most people know MS “spy on them” yet don’t want alternatives. There’s a reason no year is the Linux Desktop year. Linux blowed, still blows and will blow as a desktop because it doesn’t provide users with the experience they want. They want the latest games and Word. They don’t want FreeCiv, Quake 2 and OOO. They also want GUI all the way, not “GUI most of the way”.
MacOSX is working out because they focused on desktop experience and on getting hardware supported, games supported and Office supported. They find applications that works for them, at no command line cost nor hassle cost. There’s just no incentive to shoot yourself in the foot as a desktop user by switching to Linux.
Edited 2010-02-12 13:47 UTC
You are of course entitled to your opinion, but sorry, I really don’t think it is valid to lie to people, for any reason. I can’t really see the point, other than trying to make more money for Microsoft by ripping people off.
The recently released KDE SC 4.4, coming as it does without any anti-features at all, in conjunction with the recently released OpenOffice 3.2, stomps all over the Windows anti-user “desktop experience”.
http://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/features/3.2/
http://www.h-online.com/open/features/KDE-SC-4-4-Fresh-breeze-for-K…
http://www.kde.org/announcements/4.4/
Seriously good, and innovative, desktop software. Yes, it is “all GUI”. Not many people would know about this, it isn’t common knowledge at all. Nevertheless, if they were shown Windows 7 and KDE4/OpenOffice3.2 side-by-side, that is doubtless the conclusion they would reach.
Oh dear … look what you made me do. After a number of attempts by various posters before you, I have finally been enticed to go a bit off-topic. Drat.
Edited 2010-02-12 14:32 UTC
I didn’t deny the looks of KDE. I actually think KDE4 looks fantastic and I use it everyday, but looks != experience. And OOO is crap imo, but that’s me. I know Linux isn’t all bad, I use it extensively, it’s just not and probably will never be a consumer OS. I’d like MacOS X (or Linux but as I said I doubt it) to really challenge MS in this area but Apple did restrict their hardware for a reason : they can develop truly top-notch drivers for it that will provide an awesome experience for their users.
Btw, I agreed to an EULA from Mandriva just today, while installing it
Looks like it’s not just MS (not that I care though).
I’m neither a hard core windows supporter or a hard core OSS supporter, but I have a hard time swalling your line of reasoning.
In the OSS world, the drivers and codecs that allow HDMI output and BD/DVD decrypting also has some DRM functionality, otherwise Linux users would not be able to decode or display HD content. DVD John was even arrested for writing the codec to read DVDs.
In that sort of environment, I can totally see why MS would add the DRM components to Windows, the right to decode and display HD content, which MS liscensed for it’s customer base (enabling a feature, and do it in such a way that is legal everywhere, including the US), is a feature, not an anti-feature (I think I may have lost some brain cells typing such a silly statment)
You can colour it anyway you want, but MS is not a distributed development effort like OSS, and could easily be sued by the RIAA/MPAA.
MS doesn’t have the luxury of avoiding US law. It is a US company, and it can’t even avoid EU law, so I think, in this case, their actions are justified.
HDMI output, in and of itself, does not entail encryption. The encryption of Blue-ray is HDCP, and it is conducted at each far end of the video link … which is to say in the optical drive, the OS, and in the TV. HDMI is merely a connector or enabler or carrier if you will between these.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hdmi#HDCP
Because FOSS is not complicit in the anti-user HDCP scheme, it has no keys, and FOSS systems cannot play Blue-Ray media even on systems that have all of the requisite hardware in place. I believe this is a feature of Blue-Ray and HDCP that Microsoft wanted in place … there is no need for it to be so. If the encryption had been entirely embedded in hardware at either end of the video link, then it would not matter what OS was used. That is the way I believe it should have been done … just as it is done in a BlueRay player / HD TV pairing with no computer in between.
DVD Jon wrote DeCSS software, which used a key which was extracted I believe from the Xing player software. It was the use of the key that got DVD Jon into some trouble, but the case against him was eventually dropped.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dvd_jon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeCSS
It is probably this incident which later gave rise to the anti-consumer DMCA laws in the US.
BTW, FOSS software does not use DVD Jon’s code, nor his “illegal” key. FOSS DVD player software uses a library called libdvdcss, which has never been legally challenged.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libdvdcss
There is no reason for Microsoft’s OS (or any OS for that matter) to be involved at all. Just embed the decryption function right inside the screen hardware, no problemo. The fact that Microsoft’s OS is involved implies that Microsoft saw an opportunity to try to lock out other OSes … again at the expense of the consumers.
I don’t.
Edited 2010-02-12 14:58 UTC
you can’t bypass the os without making it a securityhole the size of a cargolifter
and the content-mafia required the link between the optical drive and the screen to be encryptet and tap-proof
as a result the os has to be involved in it and i’m sure ms doesn’t like it
Edited 2010-02-12 15:02 UTC
Half right.
The content providers did require a tap-proof link.
However, the tap-proof link could have simply been provided by an additional hardware cable from the optical drive direct to the video card which was exclusively for the video protected-content data-stream.
By-pass the OS entirely. Tap-proof (since the OS data buses never see the protected data).
There is no security hole either … the protected-content data simply never touches the OS, and the rest of the optical drive interface is unchanged.
A Blueray player in a PC would then simply draw a video window, tell the video card to expect data from the optical drive and to render it in that window, and tell the optical drive to start delivering protected data over the separate link cable.
While the video was playing, the PC would act as no more than a remote control.
Done. No anti-features in any OS are required, and the hardware need not be OS specific.
Edited 2010-02-13 01:20 UTC
Wouldn’t such an approach bring some limitations? I.e. if your screen brightness was os-controlled for example, that could be ignored bythe disk you’re playing. It reminds me of the old CD analog cable that used to connect a CDROM drive to the audio card to play CD content without the os getting involved. It worked, but none of your audio controls aside from volume would do anything. Wouldn’t a direct link between the blue ray drive and the video card impose similar limitations on video controls?
Not really.
After the digital data has arrived at the video card it should then be passed on to the monitor via the video card’s HDMI output. Either than, or the video card decrypts it, decodes the video codec, scales & crops & adjusts for brightness etc, before re-encryption & passing over the HDMI cable to the connected TV or screen.
In either event, once the video card has the data to process, what should it matter that the digital data came direct from the optical drive via a separate cable rather than from the OS via the CPUs I/O bus?
This is digital data, remember, it is not like separate analogue channels that may have different gains.
MS didn’t want HDCP, The content providers did. MS has nothing to gain from this sort of DRM. HDCP is a mandated part of the HDMI spec because of the content providers. I don’t see how MS gains anything from the DRM in the HD video and DVD software in Windows, except more work.
They aren’t locking customers into Windows, the content providers are trying to lock your content to a particular device, or class of devices, so if you want to play it on something else, you have to buy a new copy.
The choices are for a producer of an OS:
1. Don’t include the DRM and subsequently don’t offer your customers HD and DVD functionality. This is the route Linux took, and as such, Linux is crippled in this regard. Linux can play DVDs, but the codec is not exactly legal in a lot of places, especially the US. XP could not play DVDs, and it sucked. Windows 7 can, and it makes life easier, as I neither have to download a codec or install a DVD player app. Thanks MS.
2. Include the DRM, give the customers the functionality and content they want, and laugh all the way to the bank.
Thank god I live in Canada which still (for now, at least) has sane laws regarding content. If it wasn’t for the screwed up US anti consumer laws and the RIAA/MPAA, we wouldn’t be having this conversation, we’d be discussing something even lamer.
i don’t either, but i believe ms had the chance of killing hdcp and acss by simply not supporting it
the content-mafia would have had to choose between loosing their expensive encryption or loosing the pc-market
No, the customer would have lost the ability to play BD movies, and output to HDMI. The content-mafia (nice term, I like it) sues it’s own customers and expects us to pay for each device we play the same content on, they would have gladly taken the hit, probably would have held a press conference claiming they had “won”
They won’t win. Not in the long run.
There will be people shouting in the streets, in the screaming words of Howard Beale: “I’M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I’M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!”
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074958/
I hope you mean the RIAA/MPAA, because I agree, they won’t, and I hope it’s soon. If it wasn’t for them there would be no need for DRM, I think we both can agree on that.
Precisely.
Further to that, on the topic of anti-features, exactly why are the people required to buy extra encryption hardware for their PCs in order to watch content they have legitimately purchased all to help the anti-consumer agenda of content producers? Where is there any fairness in that deal?
If you could make an infinite number of copies of your house/car for $0, they probably would. Therein lies the distinction. And it probably wouldn’t be optional either.
Economics 101: Economy is about the allocation of scarce goods. Notice the word scarce (-> Scarcity).
Therefore it is in my opinion a bad idea to argue about a world with infinite tangible goods based on the understanding of a world with finite tangible goods. What sort of business model would this be based on? That’s a different question…
Edited 2010-02-12 21:59 UTC
I don’t know what you’re saying, but if your point is that it’s kind of retarded to try to sell something you can make infinite copies of for $0, I can’t really argue that point. On the other hand, trying to argue that this same something is the same as a physical good and should be treated as such is equally as retarded. Even pirates know this, as they’ll tell you that downloading an album for free is not the same as walking into a store and walking out the door with a stolen CD …
Sorry, was maybe a bit vague.
My point was about living in an world you (and “lemor2”) imagine and being able to reproduce infinite numbers of physical goods with really no additional costs.
You then argue based on a quote of “lemur2” that in this world people would be accused of stealing if they reproduce physical goods.
I just wanted to state that *I* think the whole economy and society of the countries in this world would in *my* opinion look probably different and arguing that it of course looks the same as nowadays on this world and everybody is accusing others of stealing is not necessarely true.
Sure you still have the costs of making *one* copy. Which the whole argument about copyright, patents, etc. is based on. (Don’t get me wrong I don’t think this is necessarely always a good or bad thing.)
> On the other hand, trying to argue that this same something is the same as a physical good and should be treated as such is equally as retarded.
Sorry, I am not sure if I understand you correctly (“this same something is the same as” confuses me a bit) but if I do, I agree with you.
Edited 2010-02-16 12:54 UTC
Neither does this. It only accuses you if you have a pirated copy.
It is more like the authorities comes around first to check if it is stolen and then every 90 days checks again to see if, uh, you have stolen it from, uhm, yourself.
Edited 2010-02-12 05:03 UTC
Microsoft apologists aside, are there people out there really stupid enough to think this is about protecting the Customer? Windows gets loaded on what?… 90+% of new computers – that’s money directly into Microsoft’s pocket even though they don’t print a manual, make disks, or much of anything else for the Customer, and they’re worried about piracy.
How much closer to printing money do they need to get?
Consumers shouldn’t be sold a computer with an OS that was downloaded from a p2p network. That’s a huge security risk.
Bittorrent is a very valid way to download an OS. It’s original development purpose was to take the strain off single storage servers by spreading the download source among many. The ISO still has to pass it’s check sum based on the hash provided by the original packager but as long as you stick with major distribution providers, your golden.
Now, I wouldn’t say the same for a single source P2P protocol like Napster the generations that followed. A complete ISO hosted by some random unknown user’s machine is far more suspect than parts of that ISO from many sources. It may not fail the check sum after download but there’s a much higher risk in the source.
The lack of P2P protocol involvement also doesn’t negate piracy. (piracy in the real sense of reselling stollen goods with or without “value add” malware)
There have been some huge busts in Europe. One was millions of dollars worth of perfectly replicated Windows boxed disks. Certificates, shrinkrap and everything. The crime group responsible had also injected malware into the images before stamping out the disks. This was stuff bound for store shelves and passing it into legitimate supply chains isn’t hard to do. No downloading, no P2P and little chance of discovery had the truck loads not been discovered at the factory or within the first short leg of the journey.
blah blah blah you’re missing the point which is that you’re more likely to get a trojan when you download illegal software.
You didn’t say illegal software though. You said:
“Consumers shouldn’t be sold a computer with an OS that was downloaded from a p2p network. That’s a huge security risk.”
“download from a p2p” which does not automatically mean downloading copyright infringing software. By extension, does that mean that unlicensed software obtained without downloading means it’s less likely to contain malware? Does downloading legally shared software invariably mean malware since it’s downloaded?
Does the “download” qualifier mean I’m far more likely to get malware infected OS images from Debian Or ubuntu’s official distribution repositories? The only possible outcome is a “huge security risk”?
I’m not seeing how downloading or using a p2p protocol like bittorrent leads invariably to high risk malware infested copyright infringing software.
Edited 2010-02-12 21:00 UTC
Do I think it’s designed to protect consumers? Not really. But purpose aside, it will accomplish this for the most part. I don’t like Microsoft, I don’t use Windows nor will I ever install it on a machine I own. But I sometimes think we respond with blind hate whenever we see the word “Microsoft” in a sentence. No matter what the original purpose of this update, it will have a positive effect on the majority of users and by extension will reduce the number of malware-infected computers I have to deal with. So I’m all for it if people really must continue to use Windows.
But it is about the customer. There are countless machines out there that have hacked versions of Windows on them that can’t be updated through Windows Update because the hack explicitly turns off automatic updates. Meanwhile, the machines are getting infected with every possible brand of malware. So, what kind of experience is that for the customer? This wouldn’t be an issue if they were running genuine Windows.
Secondly, why are you complaining about Microsoft selling its product and making a profit? I mean, we all pay phone bills, rent/mortgages, car payments, etc, and nobody begrudges those people their money. What makes software different? It’s a product. Just like any other product, except you can’t hold it in your hands. Microsoft invested millions of dollars developing that product and, whether you agree with this or not, they deserve to sell it. If you don’t like it, that’s fine. Don’t use it. Buy a Mac. Or get a Linux box. But stop pretending that Microsoft is being unreasonable for expecting to be paid for a product that it created. That’s just retarded.
MS could have allowed security, or at minimum critical, updates to continue but blocked non-critical and “value add” type updates. They could have even tried a true “value added” approach rather than spinning survelance as some kind of consumer beneficial privacy invasion. MS can afford some of the smartest programmers in the world; they had options.
They already have some of the smartest programmers in the world.
Most consumers support these types of measures. Be glad that it is an optional update.
Most consumers support what marketing tells them. But I’m also glad that it’s an optional upgrade for the moment.
this is far from pointless, its so that Microsoft can claim to hate piracy, but so that people can still get their free winbl-ows(f–king osnews censoring)
Sometimes, you come across an oSneWs item that makes you go “eh…?” This is definitely one of them.
Write about something actually useful to your readers.
My bet is that in time Microsoft will say this was so successful that they will implement it in Windows 8(?) without the option of removing it. So people can get used to the idea of this function before implementing it as a standard on the platform.
This sort of thing hurts genuine customers. The idea is silly because they’re getting customers to install it on already genuine Windows 7 installs.
Microsoft are basically saying; If you have a genuine copy, you may at some point have a pirated one because it checks every 90 days.
I do think people have forgiven Microsoft’s past already, just because Windows 7 is good and are willing to let them get away with such horrid schemes again.
I bet that when you use one of the warez corporate license keys you will be able to install any of this WGA/WAT crap without being exposed.
This is merely one more reason why I’m glad I don’t do Windows.
I think they need to phone home everyday….. it should look for ANY pirated software but epecially windows apps. If found it will encrypt. And lock your pc and send all info to authoritys who will have the unlock keys and can catch you pirates red handed! :/
Will you also be submitting your family and home to random police search based on the “clear evidence” provided by any disgruntled neibour making an anonymous tipoff?
i’d just like to point out that the XP WGA has always been optional, unless you wanted to install IE7.
however, if you ticked it as “don’t remind me for this update”.. it would still ask you to update every time which is a little annoying
Hm.. I may have to rebuild one of the spares at work here to check that out. I thought WGA validation became required for SP2 or latter updates. I remember originally saying “no, and don’t remind me again” then having to go back and accept it before getting further updates.
Actually, I had to dive into this a little in fall of 2009. Starting with Win7 and Windows Server 2008 by default Windows will phone home to validate your license every week. You can configure this somewhat, but it becomes problematic if you do not have an Internet connection – then Windows invalidates your valid license when it can’t reach the Microsoft servers. The only way to disable this functionality is with a volume license – and even then, you have to go through special steps via the command-line to get it to validate once and be done.
More information available here:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd979805.aspx
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc303276.aspx
I haven’t read through all the comments, so I’m not sure if this has been brought up.
MS prevents a lot of downloads (that aren’t on the Windows Update site) unless WGA is installed. While you can probably find those downloads somewhere else on the Net… it is kind of a PITA.
I would assume that WAT will be similar in nature… meaning “optional” depends on your perspective.
First we have an update that checks for genuine copies. Next we will have features that depend on this update. Then we will have features disabled without this update.
The result will be millions, if not hundreds of millions of pirate copies of Windows 7 (mainly in the developing world) un-patched un-updated. The virus and malware will be developed for them, as the crackers find the inevitable holes and weaknesses in Windows 7’s security model. Before you know what’s what we will have armies of Windows 7 zombie bots, spam mass mailers and the situation will be as bad as XP, probably worse as broad band is even beginning to penetrate the third world.
Microsoft doesn’t care. So long as those people are using pirated Windows, even if unpatched, they’re not using an alternative platform. Simple as that. That’s why I dislike it when people say that pirating Windows is taking a stand against MS. It isn’t.
Agreed MS would much rather the developing world used pirate Windows than an Opensource OS. It helps entrench their monopoly.
The whole phone home issue is an interesting one to me as what other product would we let a company enter our legally purchased product. How do we know what the phone home software is checking, is it checking only the OS or is it checking what applications we have installed or something more advanced than this. The answer is that we just don’t know and probably never will. I guess this is a matter of trust when it comes to Microsoft phone home software. Personally with their business tactics I don’t trust their motives and software checking motives.