Topic: Windows Product Activation (WPA)

[toasty0]

For the full scoop

[prometheus]

I can understand Microsoft wishing to contest the incredible amout of piracy involving the Windows Operating System, but one thing I've never approved of is the idea that if I have three PC's, I should buy three copies of Windows...  I think that is the thin end of the wedge, not to mention extremely greedy...

[Dash Jones]

Actually the way MS views piracy, that's the type of piracy they view as most common.  The idea that you have one copy of Windows, in their mind goes with one computer.  The second you put it on a second computer with the same disk you have committed piracy.  According to MS.

Hence this is one of the methods they have of combatting this.

I personally am against it because it makes you dependant upon another source every single time your reformat and reinstall.  I find that it is a little annoyance personally...and that's one of the big things that I am against with the Windows activation ploy...BUT just for your information...

For MS (this is not the piracy MOST manufacturers of computers and software are concerned with) they define piracy as using an OS from the same disk on more than one computer.  An OS goes for one and only one specific computer, and when that computer goes caput, so does the OS...hence why they will probably not feel the need to support XP over 5 to 10 years after they stop production of it...for how many computers are that old and would be still running it vs. the amount of money they'd have to put in to keep it up.

Addedum:  In essence they are correct in regards to what the major source of piracy is (when using their definition of software piracy vs. what is normally used) that a majority of extra copies in the West (in regards to the US and Europe) were from people installing an OS mulitple times on multiple computers from the same box copy.

Personally I think they were a little short on their time estimates in relation to Win9x...BUT part of it also is that they probably wanted to push XP and sell more OS's to make more money.

[prometheus]

Well, I've paid £93.00 ($160.00) for a copy of XP that they refused to reactiviate and I swear that it is the last penny they will get from me...  The latest Linux releases are as stable and pretty looking as XP anyway, so their Lisencing policy has lost them business...

[SkyFlyer]

You can reactivate after 3 months

[prometheus]

You can reactivate after 3 months

Or, alternatively, I can, and have installed Linux on one computer and Win 2K on the other...  I'm not installing an OS every 30 days for three months, or buying three copies of XP just so Microsoft can have a draconian lisencing policy at my expense... 

I've got half a dozen CD players in this house.  Should I buy six copies of Led Zeppelin II as well?

I mean lets be honest, how many people here with more than one PC buy a copy of the same OS for each one of them?

[Nemesis]

I mean lets be honest, how many people here with more than one PC buy a copy of the same OS for each one of them?

Anyone who buys a mass market PC such as a Dell is going to have an included license for Windows unless they work hard to avoid it (Dell just released a PC with no OS installed but a FreeDOS CD included).

Those such as myself who end up buying a retail version per custom built machine because of honesty.  I have more licenses for windows than machines and not all my machines do windows.  By New Years I expect to be down to one Windows machine until I get a new laptop, then I will be stuck with another license as it is very difficult to get a laptop without windows.

If you are going to use Microsofts products you should pay for them.  If you are not going to use it you shouldn't be forced to pay for it.

You can also get reduced prices on multiple licenses (direct from Microsoft) after you buy the retail version.


Windows XP Home Link

Windows XP Pro Link

Pestalence pointed that out some time back.

[prometheus]

I mean lets be honest, how many people here with more than one PC buy a copy of the same OS for each one of them?

Anyone who buys a mass market PC such as a Dell is going to have an included license for Windows unless they work hard to avoid it (Dell just released a PC with no OS installed but a FreeDOS CD included).

Those such as myself who end up buying a retail version per custom built machine because of honesty.  I have more licenses for windows than machines and not all my machines do windows.  By New Years I expect to be down to one Windows machine until I get a new laptop, then I will be stuck with another license as it is very difficult to get a laptop without windows.

If you are going to use Microsofts products you should pay for them.  If you are not going to use it you shouldn't be forced to pay for it.

You can also get reduced prices on multiple licenses (direct from Microsoft) after you buy the retail version.


Windows XP Home Link

Windows XP Pro Link

Pestalence pointed that out some time back.

I have several computers that I have maintained for years that have evolved and changed and had parts swapped from one to the other until the point where it is impossible to tell what bits and pieces started where...   Hell, even the towers and power supplies have been upgraded... I have a lisence to run Windows 9x and Windows XP, but there are issues starting to arise with support for Windows 9x...  For example, the latest version of Adobe Acrobat reader did not want to run on my 9x PC at all... 

To cut a long story short, Microsoft have lost my custom for the foreseable future, since I will be on Open Source OS from now on...  In being Draconian, they have done themselves out of my even buying one OS to run on three systems...  Now if I was a businessman, I would think better 33% of something than 100% of nothing.  I don't think they will much care about my custom to be honest, but business in Europe seems to be deserting them in droves too since XP was launched, and a lot of businesses seem to just be sticking with Win 2K...

To cut a long story short, again, I think Microsoft are reaching the point where they are licensing themselves out of the market.  I personally think all OS should be Open Source anyhow...

[SkyFlyer]

Should I buy six copies of Led Zeppelin II as well?

Is the CD in all six CD players at the same time?


Just playing the devil's advocate.

[prometheus]

Should I buy six copies of Led Zeppelin II as well?

Is the CD in all six CD players at the same time?


Just playing the devil's advocate.

I don't think I've ever had a windows XP CD that could operate in six copmputers simultaneously either...  Generally, I think that Windows XP is  A OKAY, it's just that the licensing policies surrounding it are B.A.D.  I don't think Linux is particularly any better than XP, but I do I like it, and will be installing it from now on...   

[Mr_Tricorder]

Prometheus, how long have you been using Linux?  I just got into it almost two months ago (I got fed up with the constant updates, patches, security issures, and system resource hogging that I was constantly dealing with in Windows XP), but I'm still a newbie to the whole Linux world.  Which distro are you using?  I'm using Vector Linux 5.0 SOHO edition.

[prometheus]

Prometheus, how long have you been using Linux?  I just got into it almost two months ago (I got fed up with the constant updates, patches, security issures, and system resource hogging that I was constantly dealing with in Windows XP), but I'm still a newbie to the whole Linux world.  Which distro are you using?  I'm using Vector Linux 5.0 SOHO edition.

It's SUSE 9.2 I've been using...  I've found it stable, easy to use and pretty secure...  I've been using it about a year now...

[SkyFlyer]

Should I buy six copies of Led Zeppelin II as well?

Is the CD in all six CD players at the same time?


Just playing the devil's advocate.

I don't think I've ever had a windows XP CD that could operate in six copmputers simultaneously either... Generally, I think that Windows XP is A OKAY, it's just that the licensing policies surrounding it are B.A.D. I don't think Linux is particularly any better than XP, but I do I like it, and will be installing it from now on...

What I'm asking is do you play the music on the CD on six radios at the same time?

In essence thats what youre doing if you run the same copy of XP on six different computers at the same time.

[Nemesis]

I have several computers that I have maintained for years that have evolved and changed and had parts swapped from one to the other until the point where it is impossible to tell what bits and pieces started where...   Hell, even the towers and power supplies have been upgraded... I have a lisence to run Windows 9x and Windows XP, but there are issues starting to arise with support for Windows 9x...  For example, the latest version of Adobe Acrobat reader did not want to run on my 9x PC at all... 

My computers evolve the same way.  It is one reason why I am so adamantly opposed to activation.

One computer (just recently given away) had evolved to the point where the only common components with the original were

Case, PSU, Keyboard, Floppy and power cord.

Some compponents had been switched multiple times.

One of my current computers has the original case, fans, keyboard, motherboard, RAID card, floppy, powersupply and power cord.  All else has changed. 

[SkyFlyer]

i to am against activation. I was just playing the devils advocate.

However its not too bad when youre only limited once every three months.

[prometheus]

i to am against activation. I was just playing the devils advocate.

However its not too bad when youre only limited once every three months.

It's not just activation, if I own three computers and one copy of windows, I don't see why there should be a problem...  Having a copy of windows for every PC in the world is an absurd waste and a gross misuse of resources...  And yet if I can take my Linux distro and install it on every PC in sight if I want to with no breach of law...

[Nemesis]

i to am against activation. I was just playing the devils advocate.

However its not too bad when youre only limited once every three months.

If Microsoft had been using activation all along you could no longer activate your old Windows 98 machine.  I know several people who still use it.  We use it at work and would have to replace an expensive piece of machinery that the Windows 98 machine controls as the manufacturer did not create drivers for any version of Windows after 98. 

Once Microsoft turns off the activation servers for XP you will no longer be able to legally reactivate XP.  Many people will find that they have the choice of using an illegal hack to continue using the product that they OWN or buying a whole new system that can handle Windows Vista.   Why should they have to pay for a new Windows and a new computer merely because Microsoft has dropped support?  Expect a class action lawsuit at that point.  In fact expect many of them.

People have complained about planned obsolescence in the auto industry but Microsoft beats that by a long margin.  They can obsolete your system by disabling a single program that they run and which no one else can run legally.  At least with your old car with care you can keep it running long after the industry wants it to be replaced.

[Nemesis]

It's not just activation, if I own three computers and one copy of windows, I don't see why there should be a problem...  Having a copy of windows for every PC in the world is an absurd waste and a gross misuse of resources...  And yet if I can take my Linux distro and install it on every PC in sight if I want to with no breach of law...

So if you ran a company with 10,000 PCs you should be able to buy one copy of Windows and run it on all of them?  Where do you draw the line?  One copy for your personal systems?  Do you share that one copy with family and friends?  What real difference is there from saying your one copy should be able to run on all your personal systems and saying it should run on all your corporate systems?

If you use Microsofts system to supply you with updates on all 3 systems you are directly stealing from Microsoft.  They priced your copy of Windows for 1 system yet you are making them support 3 systems.  I think that their prices are excessive but they do have the right to do that and you have the right to not buy from them.  Windows is not a necessity that you must have to live so stealing it because you don't like the rules under which they sell it is not (in my opinion) justifiable.  It is especially unjustifiable because Linux is there as a more affordable alternative.

Linux is of course different and even there you have to check your distribution.  Those that contain proprietary software (and some do) can legally limit your rights to install that proprietary software. Linux companies because of the distributed nature of Linux development don't have all the same costs as Microsoft.  They also don't have the same level of control (which is mostly good in my view).  They also know of the differences and factor it into their pricing and support models.  So when you do the multiple installs of Linux you are not costing them money that they did not plan to spend like you are with Microsoft.

If you don't like Microsoft don't steal from them use Linux or Mac.  Using Linux or Mac actually hurts them more than piracy does so if you really dislike them and want to hurt them that is the better way to do it.  It is not only being more effective, it is also morally, ethically and legally superiour.

[prometheus]

It's not just activation, if I own three computers and one copy of windows, I don't see why there should be a problem...  Having a copy of windows for every PC in the world is an absurd waste and a gross misuse of resources...  And yet if I can take my Linux distro and install it on every PC in sight if I want to with no breach of law...

So if you ran a company with 10,000 PCs you should be able to buy one copy of Windows and run it on all of them?  Where do you draw the line?  One copy for your personal systems?  Do you share that one copy with family and friends?  What real difference is there from saying your one copy should be able to run on all your personal systems and saying it should run on all your corporate systems?

If you use Microsofts system to supply you with updates on all 3 systems you are directly stealing from Microsoft.  They priced your copy of Windows for 1 system yet you are making them support 3 systems.  I think that their prices are excessive but they do have the right to do that and you have the right to not buy from them.  Windows is not a necessity that you must have to live so stealing it because you don't like the rules under which they sell it is not (in my opinion) justifiable.  It is especially unjustifiable because Linux is there as a more affordable alternative.

Linux is of course different and even there you have to check your distribution.  Those that contain proprietary software (and some do) can legally limit your rights to install that proprietary software. Linux companies because of the distributed nature of Linux development don't have all the same costs as Microsoft.  They also don't have the same level of control (which is mostly good in my view).  They also know of the differences and factor it into their pricing and support models.  So when you do the multiple installs of Linux you are not costing them money that they did not plan to spend like you are with Microsoft.

If you don't like Microsoft don't steal from them use Linux or Mac.  Using Linux or Mac actually hurts them more than piracy does so if you really dislike them and want to hurt them that is the better way to do it.  It is not only being more effective, it is also morally, ethically and legally superiour.

That is exactly what I do, I don't steal from microsoft...  I use alternatives, of which there are now several reasonably good ones to choose from.  I need one computer running windows, and I have a copy of XP that I bought legally and above board for it, and I have a legal copy of 9x for one of my other systems...  Any more computers I build I put Linux on them...

Interestingly enough, it is because of the open source philosophy behind linux that thousands of companies who do have 10,000 PC's are becoming increasingly attracted to Linux... 

I know this might be the rabid left winger in me, but I personally believe that shipping a computer without a working OS and installation disks should be illegal, since a computer with no OS is an inert lump of metal and plastic...

[Dash Jones]

i to am against activation. I was just playing the devils advocate.

However its not too bad when youre only limited once every three months.

If Microsoft had been using activation all along you could no longer activate your old Windows 98 machine.  I know several people who still use it.  We use it at work and would have to replace an expensive piece of machinery that the Windows 98 machine controls as the manufacturer did not create drivers for any version of Windows after 98. 

Once Microsoft turns off the activation servers for XP you will no longer be able to legally reactivate XP.  Many people will find that they have the choice of using an illegal hack to continue using the product that they OWN or buying a whole new system that can handle Windows Vista.   Why should they have to pay for a new Windows and a new computer merely because Microsoft has dropped support?  Expect a class action lawsuit at that point.  In fact expect many of them.

People have complained about planned obsolescence in the auto industry but Microsoft beats that by a long margin.  They can obsolete your system by disabling a single program that they run and which no one else can run legally.  At least with your old car with care you can keep it running long after the industry wants it to be replaced.

Now I know my cousin doesn't believe this, BUT officially, Microsoft has stated that if they ever stop suppoting XP and the activation, then they will provide a workaround.

The question would be if you believe they will do that or not.