Topic: Microsoft Update site Malfunction

[Dracho]

I logged in last night and decided to run Windows Update to see if any optional hardware updates etc were available.  The first thing it did was update the windows validation tool, then it told me my $299 copy of Windows XP Pro was no longer validated because it was installed on 2 machines. So, since I know this is not true, I called Microsoft, because I'd been playing with my bios, and I did replace the MB and processor after my "explosion".. 

The first tech suggested I re-install Windows (yeah, that's going to happen), and eventually, she put me over to Tier II tech support, who spent 30 minutes trying to get my registry to ask me to validate Windows XP again.  Halfway through the call we are "disconnected".

I called back and spoke to a different triage tech (of course) gave them my case number and asked to be reconnected to customer support.  She read my case and said, "Sir, we don't need to send you over there.  We've messed something up on our Windows Update site and THOUSANDS of people are calling in".

Good thing I didn't take their re-installation advice...

Grrrr....

[Sirgod]

Can't win for Loosing. I only called Microsoft one time many many years ago, when I was a hardware tech for Second Hand software. It took up my whole day, and All I was wanting was to order Win95 on diskette.

stephen

[Nemesis]

I did replace the MB and processor after my "explosion".. 

The current info that I have for Windows Vista is that if you replace the motherboard you have to buy a new copy of Vista.

[Sirgod]

I did replace the MB and processor after my "explosion".. 

The current info that I have for Windows Vista is that if you replace the motherboard you have to buy a new copy of Vista.

Oh hell no, Tell me your kidding. XP was bad enough if you do alot of part switching.

Stephen

[Mr_Tricorder]

I did replace the MB and processor after my "explosion".. 

The current info that I have for Windows Vista is that if you replace the motherboard you have to buy a new copy of Vista.

Oh hell no, Tell me your kidding. XP was bad enough if you do alot of part switching.

Stephen

That's what I've been hearing too, although I've also been hearing that it may allow you to change major hardware components, like motherboards or CPUs three or five times.  Still, I think that's way out of line and far too restrictive for me (that is, if I had the money to upgrade my hardware as often as I liked).

[Sirgod]

I did replace the MB and processor after my "explosion".. 

The current info that I have for Windows Vista is that if you replace the motherboard you have to buy a new copy of Vista.

Oh hell no, Tell me your kidding. XP was bad enough if you do alot of part switching.

Stephen

That's what I've been hearing too, although I've also been hearing that it may allow you to change major hardware components, like motherboards or CPUs three or five times.  Still, I think that's way out of line and far too restrictive for me (that is, if I had the money to upgrade my hardware as often as I liked).

Well with me, I always have enough Parts laying around to make 2-3 more PC's. It's just I'm to lazy to do it. Still though, as a parts changer, It might be a pain in the Kister.

Shoot, Right now, I'm looking at this one area about 40 acres, and thinking of Growing Some Alfalfa, simply because, they have this new software program Offered by John Deer, that measures your Harvest as you cut it. Now sure I could Use the alfalfa, But seriously, It's more along the lines that I'm such a geek, and want to play with a new toy. and hey, If Farming and PC's enter in, all the better.

Stephen

[Nemesis]

Oh hell no, Tell me your kidding. XP was bad enough if you do alot of part switching.

Stephen

I don't kid about things like that.  Link to full article.

Microsoft recently made a change to the licence agreement saying that a new motherboard is equal to a new computer, hence you need to purchase a new Windows licence.

Here is what Microsoft has to say:

“An upgrade of the motherboard is considered to result in a “new personal computer” to which Microsoft® OEM operating system software cannot be transferred from another computer. If the motherboard is upgraded or replaced for reasons other than a defect, then a new computer has been created and the license of new operating system software is required.”

The reason Microsoft gave for this term is that “Microsoft needed to have one base component “left standing” that would still define that original PC. Since the motherboard contains the CPU and is the “heart and soul” of the PC, when the motherboard is replaced (for reasons other than defect) a new PC is essentially created.”

My systems tend to evolve and XPs activation kept me away from it (until I bought a laptop and had no choice but to get XP home with it).   Vista seems even worse for me so I will be staying with Win2KPro and Linux.

[Just plain old Punisher]

Get a piece of software called trixie... I have it on another computer. I'll post the link here....basically what it does is trick the windows update site into thinking you're computer has a valid product key.

I'll get to it a little bit later tonight.

[Nemesis]

Get a piece of software called trixie... I have it on another computer. I'll post the link here....basically what it does is trick the windows update site into thinking you're computer has a valid product key.

I'll get to it a little bit later tonight.

As a tool for violating copy protection (XPs activation) under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) in the U.S. it is illegal to own or use that software.  Big fines and possible jail sentence.

[Just plain old Punisher]

Just like that FBI warning on the beginning of video tapes right?

It's not like microsoft is going to fix the problem.

[Nemesis]

Just like that FBI warning on the beginning of video tapes right?

It's not like microsoft is going to fix the problem.

A little stronger considering Windows does call home and reports.

I wish that software companies had to obey copyright law without being allowed to write "Licenses" to give themselves more rights while taking from their customers.  Doing the opposite I don't mind.  (The opposite being choosing to give up rights that the law allows).  Right now EULAs are too one sided.

[The Bar-Abbas Anomaly]

 

Microsoft released a new version of it's WGA-thingy last week that cannot be disabled (the previous quick-'n-dirty patch prefered by users running 'non-standard' versions) from Manage Add-Ons in IE.

All they have done is force those same users to download and install the latest LegitCheckControl.dll which is readily available to download from several sites after a brief Google search.   


Sometimes I really wonder if anyone at MS has ever sat down and calculated how much money, effort and man-hours they pour into inconveniencing paying customers (They actually PAY someone to answer a phone and listen to me read a 40-character code, listen to my sob-story why it should work anyway and then read me another 40-character code?!?) while trying to force people who will NEVER send them one thin red dime to send them money.  Hey, I've got an idea, Bill!  Just cut the whole program and you'll save Millions!!!

*sigh*

 

Sometimes, I just don't get it.

[Nemesis]

Sometimes I really wonder if anyone at MS has ever sat down and calculated how much money, effort and man-hours they pour into inconveniencing paying customers (They actually PAY someone to answer a phone and listen to me read a 40-character code, listen to my sob-story why it should work anyway and then read me another 40-character code?!?) while trying to force people who will NEVER send them one thin red dime to send them money.  Hey, I've got an idea, Bill!  Just cut the whole program and you'll save Millions!!!

If I recall correctly Lotus was asked why they dropped copy protection.  The response was that copy protection (development and support) cost them more money than developing the product itself. 

The other half that Microsoft should ask themselves is how many paying customers do they lose by this copy protection system and their general "WE control your computer" attitude.

As I see it Microsofts goal is to force upgrades to keep the constant revenue stream going until they can manage a switch to the subscription model.  They are addicted to the high growth model of a new industry and PCs are becoming a replacement market industry with low (or zero) growth.  Many companies fail to manage the switch from being a new market company to a mature market company, Microsoft is trying to avoid the switch and that may very well be their downfall.

[Dracho]

The other half that Microsoft should ask themselves is how many paying customers do they lose by this copy protection system and their general "WE control your computer" attitude.

The answer would be none, because there is no popular alternative to Windows.  However, the people they are going to hit the hardest with a change of motherboard policy will be gamers and programmers.. people who write operating systems..

Linux will run Office applications, so there are viable alternatives at work already.  If they force gamers onto another OS, they will cut out a big hunk of their home market, I think.

I hope they are shooting themselves in the foot.

[Nemesis]

The answer would be none, because there is no popular alternative to Windows.  However, the people they are going to hit the hardest with a change of motherboard policy will be gamers and programmers.. people who write operating systems..

I will disagree there.  Myself as one example.  I would have upgraded my own computer and my mothers to WinXP except for the activation issue.  Instead my mother is staying on Win98SE and I am staying on Win2kPro for gaming and slowly moving to Linux for other purposes.  Gaming I can give up when Win2KPro is no longer good enough. 

Not everyone is a gamer.  Many just need office software and/or internet access.  I know a number of people who because of activation have not bought XP when they would have because of this issue.  Some of them like myself are moving away from Windows.  Others are just staying on older Windows for years longer and hoping that Linux will be "ready" when they are finally forced by advancing technology to upgrade their hardware.

Linux will run Office applications, so there are viable alternatives at work already.  If they force gamers onto another OS, they will cut out a big hunk of their home market, I think.

Offices (of sufficient size at least) can already avoid activation.  Can they avoid the new copy of Windows for a motherboard breakdown/replacement?  I don't know.

Maybe some of the smaller more innovative companies will target Linux for their games.  Less of a market but less competition for that market and the market is growing. 

I hope they are shooting themselves in the foot.

I'd rather that they adapted gracefully to the new era and did so without attacks on their customer base.

[Mr_Tricorder]

It's really all a matter of social inertia.  How inconvenient does using Windows have to become to motivate one to take the time and effort to switch to something else?  It wouldn't matter even if Linux is a million times better than Windows in every way and could run every game and piece of software imaginable.  If people aren't dissatisfied with Windows enough to switch and learn a new OS (while most of these people still have a very minute understanding of Windows), then they're going to continue to use Windows.

As outrageous as this new policy is, it is hardly enough to overcome the social inertia for the vast majority of people.  How many people do you know actually know how to swap out a motherboard?  Compare that to the number of people you know who have no idea plus those who do but don't or can't because they're using a brand-name computer with a proprietary case.  This policy doesn't significantly hurt M$ because the percentage of people who actually care about this is very small.

[Javora]

My friend of mine says it is going to get worse with Microsoft, he was telling me that Microsoft's EULA in upcoming Windows Vista and something in it that says that anything created using the operating system becomes the property of Microsoft.  Since they work at a electronics company making parts for other companies.  The prospect of making a PCB using a program sitting on a Windows Vista platform doesn't sit to well with them right now.  They are really looking into switching to Linux OS right now, when I get the chance I'll ask and see if his boss can send me the links that he saw them on.  I haven't seen them myself but I have no reason not to trust these people, they do very good work.

The other thing that makes me wonder about why the need for Vista is that Microsoft announced that Halo 2 would only run on Windows Vista operating system.  Seems like Microsoft knows that they don't have a real product and are trying anything to force people to switch.  Improved DRM anyone??!?

The only thing that gets me about Linux right now is that Tovolds won't release the next GPL (Version 3 is it??!?) because he thinks DRM that the media want is ok.  Here is the problem as I see it, if Linux has DRM it basically becomes a Windows clone with no value.  But no media companies appears to want anything to do with Linux as long as it is DRM free.  So there is no reason for me to want to continue with Windows based computer the way things are evolving.  But if Linux ends up with DRM as Tovolds wants what point is there with Linux??!?  I want control over my computer, Windows isn't the answer anymore but if Linux ends up with DRM added it may become just as bad.  So what's left??!?  The computer world doesn't look very pretty anymore, I think I need to find another hobby that media companies can't control.  Painting by numbers is looking really good right now, maybe a good crossword puzzle??!?

[Mr_Tricorder]

Torvalds doesn't want DRM in Linux, but he doesn't want to force all distrbutions to be DRM-free.  The reason why he doesn't approve of licensing Linux under GPL v3 is because it specifically prohibits DRM.  He wants the decision of using DRM to be up to those who develop the different distributions, just like the decision to include closed-source software is up to those who develop the distributions.  He's all about making sure people have as many choices as possible and doesn't want to limit developers in any way.  He sees the clause about DRM to be a purely political statement and doesn't belong in a software license.  Personally, I agree with him.

[Nemesis]

The only thing that gets me about Linux right now is that Tovolds won't release the next GPL (Version 3 is it??!?) because he thinks DRM that the media want is ok. 

Changing the license on Linux is not as easy as people tend to think.  The standard GPL v2 has a GPL v2 or later clause which allows you to distribute under a later GPL license version.  Linux uses a slightly customized version of GPL v2 with that clause left out.  That was done on purpose.  If the Free Software Foundation (FSF) updates the GPL in a restrictive manner (such as blocking DRM) Linux is not affected.  However it has a side effect in that any attempt to update the Linux license requires all copyright owners with code in Linux to agree to the change or the code whose owners do not agree to be replaced.  Very difficult and it would only be attempted if a serious defect with the current license were found.