WGA Hacked?! Get a Fair and Balance Perspective!



kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:44 PM
http://www.kurttrail.com/kblog/kblogarch/00000010.php

And why is MS got penguins on its new MSN sign on page? Just to piss
off the Linux Zealots?

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

uggabugga
07-09-2005, 11:44 PM
There's a bag of popcorn on the page now. It looks like the two parent
penguins are hanging their heads in shame at the Linux penguin.
--
That's just like my opinion, Man........


"kurttrail" wrote:

> http://www.kurttrail.com/kblog/kblogarch/00000010.php
>
> And why is MS got penguins on its new MSN sign on page? Just to piss
> off the Linux Zealots?
>
> --
> Peace!
> Kurt
> Self-anointed Moderator
> microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
> http://microscum.com/mscommunity
> "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
> "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
>
>
>

PA Bear
07-09-2005, 11:44 PM
Why is kurt got a pic with a hidden butterfly on his site? Just to piss off
MSN?
--
~PAř

kurttrail wrote:
> http://www.kurttrail.com/kblog/kblogarch/00000010.php
>
> And why is MS got penguins on its new MSN sign on page? Just to piss
> off the Linux Zealots?

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:44 PM
uggabugga wrote:
> There's a bag of popcorn on the page now. It looks like the two parent
> penguins are hanging their heads in shame at the Linux penguin.
>
>> http://www.kurttrail.com/kblog/kblogarch/00000010.php
>>

Reload the page now, and what does it look like to you?

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:44 PM
PA Bear wrote:
> Why is kurt got a pic with a hidden butterfly on his site? Just to
> piss off MSN?

Who me? ;-)

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Mike Brannigan [MSFT]
07-09-2005, 11:44 PM
Kurt,

This is not a hack - since at this time you can still access all WGA
protected content by choosing to not validate. It will then take you to the
download directly.
This will not remain the case - soon you will have to validate to access the
content.
--

Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups

"kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:ewlSrBWYFHA.1796@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> http://www.kurttrail.com/kblog/kblogarch/00000010.php
>
> And why is MS got penguins on its new MSN sign on page? Just to piss off
> the Linux Zealots?
>
> --
> Peace!
> Kurt
> Self-anointed Moderator
> microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
> http://microscum.com/mscommunity
> "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
> "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
>

uggabugga
07-09-2005, 11:44 PM
Kurt,

Your links to:

Glacier National Park-Oct'98 Rolls #8 & #9, & Journal

Jonathan Dickinson State Park - 2000

are dead in case you didn't know.
--
That's just like my opinion, Man........


"kurttrail" wrote:

> uggabugga wrote:
> > There's a bag of popcorn on the page now. It looks like the two parent
> > penguins are hanging their heads in shame at the Linux penguin.
> >
> >> http://www.kurttrail.com/kblog/kblogarch/00000010.php
> >>
>
> Reload the page now, and what does it look like to you?
>
> --
> Peace!
> Kurt
> Self-anointed Moderator
> microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
> http://microscum.com/mscommunity
> "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
> "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
>
>
>

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:44 PM
uggabugga wrote:
> Kurt,
>
> Your links to:
>
> Glacier National Park-Oct'98 Rolls #8 & #9, & Journal
>
> Jonathan Dickinson State Park - 2000
>
> are dead in case you didn't know.
>
>> uggabugga wrote:
>>> There's a bag of popcorn on the page now. It looks like the two
>>> parent penguins are hanging their heads in shame at the Linux
>>> penguin.
>>>
>>>> http://www.kurttrail.com/kblog/kblogarch/00000010.php
>>>>
>>
>> Reload the page now, and what does it look like to you?
>>
>> --
>> Peace!
>> Kurt
>> Self-anointed Moderator
>> microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
>> http://microscum.com/mscommunity
>> "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
>> "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Thanks!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:44 PM
Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
> Kurt,
>
> This is not a hack - since at this time you can still access all WGA
> protected content by choosing to not validate.

No?! Really?! LOL!

"Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) or Validation has kinda been hacked,
but the hack only works at the Microsoft Download Center, but won't help
ya' at Windows Update, or in downloading the WGA free offers." - from
the KurtBlog link I originally gave.

> It will then take you
> to the download directly.
> This will not remain the case - soon you will have to validate to
> access the content.

Unless you get the url to the file! But You guys really got to stop the
totally false claim that WGA speeds up downloading! I was testing it
today, and it is noticibly slower to download a file validating, than it
is not validating.

But only goes to prove that your company finds it easier to distort
reality than tell the truth!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Steve N.
07-09-2005, 11:44 PM
kurttrail wrote:
> uggabugga wrote:
>
>>There's a bag of popcorn on the page now. It looks like the two parent
>>penguins are hanging their heads in shame at the Linux penguin.
>>
>>
>>>http://www.kurttrail.com/kblog/kblogarch/00000010.php
>>>
>
>
> Reload the page now, and what does it look like to you?
>

It looks like you're one sick puppy is what it looks like to me.

Steve

Mike Brannigan [MSFT]
07-09-2005, 11:44 PM
"kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:%23kqipDXYFHA.3096@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
>> Kurt,
>>
>> This is not a hack - since at this time you can still access all WGA
>> protected content by choosing to not validate.
>
> No?! Really?! LOL!
>
> "Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) or Validation has kinda been hacked, but
> the hack only works at the Microsoft Download Center, but won't help ya'
> at Windows Update, or in downloading the WGA free offers." - from the
> KurtBlog link I originally gave.
>
>> It will then take you
>> to the download directly.
>> This will not remain the case - soon you will have to validate to
>> access the content.
>
> Unless you get the url to the file! But You guys really got to stop the
> totally false claim that WGA speeds up downloading! I was testing it
> today, and it is noticibly slower to download a file validating, than it
> is not validating.
>
> But only goes to prove that your company finds it easier to distort
> reality than tell the truth!

As regards the static full path URLs you see to day and use to get around
the WGA process. Getting those URLs will not be a viable option once we go
compulsory WGA.
I was not aware we make any claims that WGA increases download speed - do
you have a link to one of our pages where we explicitly state this ?
--

Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups

"kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:%23kqipDXYFHA.3096@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
>> Kurt,
>>
>> This is not a hack - since at this time you can still access all WGA
>> protected content by choosing to not validate.
>
> No?! Really?! LOL!
>
> "Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) or Validation has kinda been hacked, but
> the hack only works at the Microsoft Download Center, but won't help ya'
> at Windows Update, or in downloading the WGA free offers." - from the
> KurtBlog link I originally gave.
>
>> It will then take you
>> to the download directly.
>> This will not remain the case - soon you will have to validate to
>> access the content.
>
> Unless you get the url to the file! But You guys really got to stop the
> totally false claim that WGA speeds up downloading! I was testing it
> today, and it is noticibly slower to download a file validating, than it
> is not validating.
>
> But only goes to prove that your company finds it easier to distort
> reality than tell the truth!
>
> --
> Peace!
> Kurt
> Self-anointed Moderator
> microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
> http://microscum.com/mscommunity
> "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
> "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
>

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:44 PM
Steve N. wrote:
> kurttrail wrote:
>> uggabugga wrote:
>>
>>> There's a bag of popcorn on the page now. It looks like the two
>>> parent penguins are hanging their heads in shame at the Linux
>>> penguin.
>>>> http://www.kurttrail.com/kblog/kblogarch/00000010.php
>>>>
>>
>>
>> Reload the page now, and what does it look like to you?
>>
>
> It looks like you're one sick puppy is what it looks like to me.
>
> Steve

ROFL! I could've done the animation of the MicroPenguins pecking on the
Linux penguin's brain too!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:44 PM
Steve N. wrote:
> kurttrail wrote:
>> uggabugga wrote:
>>
>>> There's a bag of popcorn on the page now. It looks like the two
>>> parent penguins are hanging their heads in shame at the Linux
>>> penguin.
>>>> http://www.kurttrail.com/kblog/kblogarch/00000010.php
>>>>
>>
>>
>> Reload the page now, and what does it look like to you?
>>
>
> It looks like you're one sick puppy is what it looks like to me.
>
> Steve

http://www.microscum.com/misc/BS/msnpenguins.gif

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:44 PM
Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in
> message news:%23kqipDXYFHA.3096@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>
>> Unless you get the url to the file! But You guys really got to stop
>> the totally false claim that WGA speeds up downloading! I was
>> testing it today, and it is noticibly slower to download a file
>> validating, than it is not validating.
>>
>> But only goes to prove that your company finds it easier to distort
>> reality than tell the truth!
>
> As regards the static full path URLs you see to day and use to get
> around the WGA process. Getting those URLs will not be a viable
> option once we go compulsory WGA.

LOL! Which will slow down the process of downloading off of ya'lls
website even more!

> I was not aware we make any claims that WGA increases download speed
> - do you have a link to one of our pages where we explicitly state
> this ? --
>

"Faster access to updates"
"Using genuine Microsoft software is the best way to receive the latest
product updates, enhancements and support from Microsoft." -
http://www.microsoft.com/genuine/downloads/WhyValidate.aspx

A validated OS actually takes longer to access the download than before
there was any validation, because it has to check the validation status,
and then redirect you to the actual download page.

But do promise me that ya'll are going thru with mandatory validation!
I gonna love all the havoc it creates, and how all ya'll are gonna piss
off your paying customers even more than ya'll already have!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Michael Arends
07-09-2005, 11:44 PM
Smiling Wickedly, kurttrail answered:
> Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
>
>>"kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in
>>message news:%23kqipDXYFHA.3096@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>
>>>Unless you get the url to the file! But You guys really got to stop
>>>the totally false claim that WGA speeds up downloading! I was
>>>testing it today, and it is noticibly slower to download a file
>>>validating, than it is not validating.
>>>
>>>But only goes to prove that your company finds it easier to distort
>>>reality than tell the truth!
>>
>>As regards the static full path URLs you see to day and use to get
>>around the WGA process. Getting those URLs will not be a viable
>>option once we go compulsory WGA.
>
>
> LOL! Which will slow down the process of downloading off of ya'lls
> website even more!
>
>
>>I was not aware we make any claims that WGA increases download speed
>>- do you have a link to one of our pages where we explicitly state
>>this ? --
>>
>
>
> "Faster access to updates"
> "Using genuine Microsoft software is the best way to receive the latest
> product updates, enhancements and support from Microsoft." -
> http://www.microsoft.com/genuine/downloads/WhyValidate.aspx
>
> A validated OS actually takes longer to access the download than before
> there was any validation, because it has to check the validation status,
> and then redirect you to the actual download page.
>
> But do promise me that ya'll are going thru with mandatory validation!
> I gonna love all the havoc it creates, and how all ya'll are gonna piss
> off your paying customers even more than ya'll already have!
>
Learn a new word Ya'll? WHAT a ignoramous.

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:44 PM
Michael Arends wrote:
> Smiling Wickedly, kurttrail answered:
>> Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
>>
>>> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in
>>> message news:%23kqipDXYFHA.3096@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>>> Unless you get the url to the file! But You guys really got to
>>>> stop the totally false claim that WGA speeds up downloading! I was
>>>> testing it today, and it is noticibly slower to download a file
>>>> validating, than it is not validating.
>>>>
>>>> But only goes to prove that your company finds it easier to distort
>>>> reality than tell the truth!
>>>
>>> As regards the static full path URLs you see to day and use to get
>>> around the WGA process. Getting those URLs will not be a viable
>>> option once we go compulsory WGA.
>>
>>
>> LOL! Which will slow down the process of downloading off of ya'lls
>> website even more!
>>
>>
>>> I was not aware we make any claims that WGA increases download speed
>>> - do you have a link to one of our pages where we explicitly state
>>> this ? --
>>>
>>
>>
>> "Faster access to updates"
>> "Using genuine Microsoft software is the best way to receive the
>> latest product updates, enhancements and support from Microsoft." -
>> http://www.microsoft.com/genuine/downloads/WhyValidate.aspx
>>
>> A validated OS actually takes longer to access the download than
>> before there was any validation, because it has to check the
>> validation status, and then redirect you to the actual download page.
>>
>> But do promise me that ya'll are going thru with mandatory
>> validation! I gonna love all the havoc it creates, and how all ya'll
>> are gonna piss off your paying customers even more than ya'll
>> already have!
>>
> Learn a new word Ya'll? WHAT a ignoramous.

ROFL! Whas a matta wid ya'll?

I an' I are down wid it. :-p

Did you understand what I meant, or are ya' calling yo'self a dummy?!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Winux P
07-09-2005, 11:45 PM
Compulsory WGA??? What! Who are these people? For what purpose would this be
for? Speed up downloads? Wouldn't it take download time + get an
authenicated check? Rather than just download time?

Who and what would WGA stop from downloading\updating anyway? My windows is
already WGA'd, I thought this happened when MS activated it.

-Winux P

"Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" <mikebran@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:OtWktNXYFHA.980@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
: "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message
: news:%23kqipDXYFHA.3096@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
: > Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
: >> Kurt,
: >>
: >> This is not a hack - since at this time you can still access all WGA
: >> protected content by choosing to not validate.
: >
: > No?! Really?! LOL!
: >
: > "Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) or Validation has kinda been hacked,
but
: > the hack only works at the Microsoft Download Center, but won't help ya'
: > at Windows Update, or in downloading the WGA free offers." - from the
: > KurtBlog link I originally gave.
: >
: >> It will then take you
: >> to the download directly.
: >> This will not remain the case - soon you will have to validate to
: >> access the content.
: >
: > Unless you get the url to the file! But You guys really got to stop the
: > totally false claim that WGA speeds up downloading! I was testing it
: > today, and it is noticibly slower to download a file validating, than it
: > is not validating.
: >
: > But only goes to prove that your company finds it easier to distort
: > reality than tell the truth!
:
: As regards the static full path URLs you see to day and use to get around
: the WGA process. Getting those URLs will not be a viable option once we go
: compulsory WGA.
: I was not aware we make any claims that WGA increases download speed - do
: you have a link to one of our pages where we explicitly state this ?
: --
:
: Regards,
:
: Mike
: --
: Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]
:
: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
: rights
:
: Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
: newsgroups
:
: "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message
: news:%23kqipDXYFHA.3096@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
: > Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
: >> Kurt,
: >>
: >> This is not a hack - since at this time you can still access all WGA
: >> protected content by choosing to not validate.
: >
: > No?! Really?! LOL!
: >
: > "Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) or Validation has kinda been hacked,
but
: > the hack only works at the Microsoft Download Center, but won't help ya'
: > at Windows Update, or in downloading the WGA free offers." - from the
: > KurtBlog link I originally gave.
: >
: >> It will then take you
: >> to the download directly.
: >> This will not remain the case - soon you will have to validate to
: >> access the content.
: >
: > Unless you get the url to the file! But You guys really got to stop the
: > totally false claim that WGA speeds up downloading! I was testing it
: > today, and it is noticibly slower to download a file validating, than it
: > is not validating.
: >
: > But only goes to prove that your company finds it easier to distort
: > reality than tell the truth!
: >
: > --
: > Peace!
: > Kurt
: > Self-anointed Moderator
: > microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
: > http://microscum.com/mscommunity
: > "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
: > "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
: >
:
:

David Candy
07-09-2005, 11:45 PM
I use Ya'll when imitating yanks.
"kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:OU7QzqYYFHA.1412@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Michael Arends wrote:
> > Smiling Wickedly, kurttrail answered:
> >> Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
> >>
> >>> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in
> >>> message news:%23kqipDXYFHA.3096@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> >>>
> >>>> Unless you get the url to the file! But You guys really got to
> >>>> stop the totally false claim that WGA speeds up downloading! I was
> >>>> testing it today, and it is noticibly slower to download a file
> >>>> validating, than it is not validating.
> >>>>
> >>>> But only goes to prove that your company finds it easier to distort
> >>>> reality than tell the truth!
> >>>
> >>> As regards the static full path URLs you see to day and use to get
> >>> around the WGA process. Getting those URLs will not be a viable
> >>> option once we go compulsory WGA.
> >>
> >>
> >> LOL! Which will slow down the process of downloading off of ya'lls
> >> website even more!
> >>
> >>
> >>> I was not aware we make any claims that WGA increases download speed
> >>> - do you have a link to one of our pages where we explicitly state
> >>> this ? --
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> "Faster access to updates"
> >> "Using genuine Microsoft software is the best way to receive the
> >> latest product updates, enhancements and support from Microsoft." -
> >> http://www.microsoft.com/genuine/downloads/WhyValidate.aspx
> >>
> >> A validated OS actually takes longer to access the download than
> >> before there was any validation, because it has to check the
> >> validation status, and then redirect you to the actual download page.
> >>
> >> But do promise me that ya'll are going thru with mandatory
> >> validation! I gonna love all the havoc it creates, and how all ya'll
> >> are gonna piss off your paying customers even more than ya'll
> >> already have!
> >>
> > Learn a new word Ya'll? WHAT a ignoramous.
>
> ROFL! Whas a matta wid ya'll?
>
> I an' I are down wid it. :-p
>
> Did you understand what I meant, or are ya' calling yo'self a dummy?!
>
> --
> Peace!
> Kurt
> Self-anointed Moderator
> microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
> http://microscum.com/mscommunity
> "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
> "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
>
>

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:45 PM
Winux P wrote:
> Compulsory WGA??? What! Who are these people? For what purpose would
> this be for? Speed up downloads? Wouldn't it take download time + get
> an authenicated check? Rather than just download time?
>
> Who and what would WGA stop from downloading\updating anyway? My
> windows is already WGA'd, I thought this happened when MS activated
> it.

It is for nothing but MS flexing its muscles over its paying customers.
WGA is separate from WPA. The former know as Validation, and the latter
as Activation. And they ar both separate and distinct from
Registration. And MS expects all its paying customers to learn the
difference, learn the differing rules of each, and to fetch when MS tell
them to. It's getting to the point where the OS is technically easier
to use, than knowing and complying with all of MS rules & policies
surrounding its copy-protection schemes!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Mike Brannigan [MSFT]
07-09-2005, 11:45 PM
"Winux P" <winuxp@msnews.grp> wrote in message
news:OyA1cmdYFHA.616@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>
> Compulsory WGA??? What! Who are these people? For what purpose would this
> be
> for? Speed up downloads? Wouldn't it take download time + get an
> authenicated check? Rather than just download time?
>

The authentication check takes almost no time at all once you have the
Active X control installed.
see
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/update/genuine.mspx
and
http://www.microsoft.com/genuine/downloads/FAQ.aspx?displaylang=en
for more information on WGA

WGA allows us to provide downloads and added value components etc to those
who use genuine Windows products.


> Who and what would WGA stop from downloading\updating anyway?

Anyone not using a properly purchased and licensed copy of Windows.

> My windows is
> already WGA'd, I thought this happened when MS activated it.
>

No that was just activation - WGA is something else see the link I provided
above.

> -Winux P



--

Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups

"Winux P" <winuxp@msnews.grp> wrote in message
news:OyA1cmdYFHA.616@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>
> Compulsory WGA??? What! Who are these people? For what purpose would this
> be
> for? Speed up downloads? Wouldn't it take download time + get an
> authenicated check? Rather than just download time?
>
> Who and what would WGA stop from downloading\updating anyway? My windows
> is
> already WGA'd, I thought this happened when MS activated it.
>
> -Winux P
>
> "Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" <mikebran@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:OtWktNXYFHA.980@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> : "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message
> : news:%23kqipDXYFHA.3096@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> : > Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
> : >> Kurt,
> : >>
> : >> This is not a hack - since at this time you can still access all WGA
> : >> protected content by choosing to not validate.
> : >
> : > No?! Really?! LOL!
> : >
> : > "Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) or Validation has kinda been hacked,
> but
> : > the hack only works at the Microsoft Download Center, but won't help
> ya'
> : > at Windows Update, or in downloading the WGA free offers." - from the
> : > KurtBlog link I originally gave.
> : >
> : >> It will then take you
> : >> to the download directly.
> : >> This will not remain the case - soon you will have to validate to
> : >> access the content.
> : >
> : > Unless you get the url to the file! But You guys really got to stop
> the
> : > totally false claim that WGA speeds up downloading! I was testing it
> : > today, and it is noticibly slower to download a file validating, than
> it
> : > is not validating.
> : >
> : > But only goes to prove that your company finds it easier to distort
> : > reality than tell the truth!
> :
> : As regards the static full path URLs you see to day and use to get
> around
> : the WGA process. Getting those URLs will not be a viable option once we
> go
> : compulsory WGA.
> : I was not aware we make any claims that WGA increases download speed -
> do
> : you have a link to one of our pages where we explicitly state this ?
> : --
> :
> : Regards,
> :
> : Mike
> : --
> : Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]
> :
> : This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> : rights
> :
> : Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
> : newsgroups
> :
> : "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message
> : news:%23kqipDXYFHA.3096@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> : > Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
> : >> Kurt,
> : >>
> : >> This is not a hack - since at this time you can still access all WGA
> : >> protected content by choosing to not validate.
> : >
> : > No?! Really?! LOL!
> : >
> : > "Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) or Validation has kinda been hacked,
> but
> : > the hack only works at the Microsoft Download Center, but won't help
> ya'
> : > at Windows Update, or in downloading the WGA free offers." - from the
> : > KurtBlog link I originally gave.
> : >
> : >> It will then take you
> : >> to the download directly.
> : >> This will not remain the case - soon you will have to validate to
> : >> access the content.
> : >
> : > Unless you get the url to the file! But You guys really got to stop
> the
> : > totally false claim that WGA speeds up downloading! I was testing it
> : > today, and it is noticibly slower to download a file validating, than
> it
> : > is not validating.
> : >
> : > But only goes to prove that your company finds it easier to distort
> : > reality than tell the truth!
> : >
> : > --
> : > Peace!
> : > Kurt
> : > Self-anointed Moderator
> : > microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
> : > http://microscum.com/mscommunity
> : > "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
> : > "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
> : >
> :
> :
>
>

Mike Brannigan [MSFT]
07-09-2005, 11:45 PM
"kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:uU8d8beYFHA.4024@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Winux P wrote:
>> Compulsory WGA??? What! Who are these people? For what purpose would
>> this be for? Speed up downloads? Wouldn't it take download time + get
>> an authenicated check? Rather than just download time?
>>
>> Who and what would WGA stop from downloading\updating anyway? My
>> windows is already WGA'd, I thought this happened when MS activated
>> it.
>
> It is for nothing but MS flexing its muscles over its paying customers.
> WGA is separate from WPA. The former know as Validation, and the latter
> as Activation. And they ar both separate and distinct from Registration.
> And MS expects all its paying customers to learn the difference, learn the
> differing rules of each, and to fetch when MS tell them to. It's getting
> to the point where the OS is technically easier to use, than knowing and
> complying with all of MS rules & policies surrounding its copy-protection
> schemes!
>
> --

Kurt the customers don't need to know or understand anything in particular,
activation can be one click and once they have the control installed then
WGA will be invisible to them too.
Only those not using genuine licensed product will have an issue.

--

Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups

"kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:uU8d8beYFHA.4024@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Winux P wrote:
>> Compulsory WGA??? What! Who are these people? For what purpose would
>> this be for? Speed up downloads? Wouldn't it take download time + get
>> an authenicated check? Rather than just download time?
>>
>> Who and what would WGA stop from downloading\updating anyway? My
>> windows is already WGA'd, I thought this happened when MS activated
>> it.
>
> It is for nothing but MS flexing its muscles over its paying customers.
> WGA is separate from WPA. The former know as Validation, and the latter
> as Activation. And they ar both separate and distinct from Registration.
> And MS expects all its paying customers to learn the difference, learn the
> differing rules of each, and to fetch when MS tell them to. It's getting
> to the point where the OS is technically easier to use, than knowing and
> complying with all of MS rules & policies surrounding its copy-protection
> schemes!
>
> --
> Peace!
> Kurt
> Self-anointed Moderator
> microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
> http://microscum.com/mscommunity
> "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
> "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
>

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:45 PM
Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
> "Winux P" <winuxp@msnews.grp> wrote in message
> news:OyA1cmdYFHA.616@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>
>> Compulsory WGA??? What! Who are these people? For what purpose would
>> this be
>> for? Speed up downloads? Wouldn't it take download time + get an
>> authenicated check? Rather than just download time?
>>
>
> The authentication check takes almost no time at all once you have the
> Active X control installed.

LOL! And then it rechecks itself before every download request.

The added time is noticable even with a broadband connection.

> see
> http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/update/genuine.mspx
> and
> http://www.microsoft.com/genuine/downloads/FAQ.aspx?displaylang=en
> for more information on WGA
>
> WGA allows us to provide downloads and added value components etc to
> those who use genuine Windows products.

ROFL! Pure Marketing BS!

Ya'll can provide downloads and added value components without WGA if
you want. In fact, you have in the past!

>> Who and what would WGA stop from downloading\updating anyway?
>
> Anyone not using a properly purchased and licensed copy of Windows.

LOL! Cool! Let's give all the pirated OS over to the spammers and
organized criminals as Zombies!

Though in pratice, WGA will only confuse tha average consumer,
especially all those that have had the copy-protection of WPA hidden
from them by their OEMs!

>> My windows is
>> already WGA'd, I thought this happened when MS activated it.
>>
>
> No that was just activation - WGA is something else see the link I
> provided above.

See. Registration, Activation, Validation! Oh My! What's next? Blood
testing?!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:45 PM
Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in
> message news:uU8d8beYFHA.4024@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> Winux P wrote:
>>> Compulsory WGA??? What! Who are these people? For what purpose would
>>> this be for? Speed up downloads? Wouldn't it take download time +
>>> get an authenicated check? Rather than just download time?
>>>
>>> Who and what would WGA stop from downloading\updating anyway? My
>>> windows is already WGA'd, I thought this happened when MS activated
>>> it.
>>
>> It is for nothing but MS flexing its muscles over its paying
>> customers. WGA is separate from WPA. The former know as Validation,
>> and the latter as Activation. And they ar both separate and
>> distinct from Registration. And MS expects all its paying customers
>> to learn the difference, learn the differing rules of each, and to
>> fetch when MS tell them to. It's getting to the point where the OS
>> is technically easier to use, than knowing and complying with all of
>> MS rules & policies surrounding its copy-protection schemes!
>>
>
> Kurt the customers don't need to know or understand anything in
> particular, activation can be one click and once they have the
> control installed then WGA will be invisible to them too.

LOL! I forgot, ya'll really hope people don't understand it all, so
that when they have problems, they'll think they have to buy another
copy of the same software that they really don't need.

PA is almost invisible from a majority of users because the major OEMs
hide it from them, but WGA will NOT be hidden from END USER that already
have WinXP installed computers

> Only those not using genuine licensed product will have an issue.


Total effin' lie! Legitimate users have already had and posted
differing problems with WGA in its voluntary form! I can't wait until
it is mandatory!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Alias
07-09-2005, 11:45 PM
"kurttrail" wrote

>
>
> Total effin' lie! Legitimate users have already had and posted differing
> problems with WGA in its voluntary form! I can't wait until it is
> mandatory!
>
> --
> Peace!
> Kurt

I can wait. The longer, the better. I have a legit Win XP but I will not
take the test that assumes I am guilty until proven innocent as my XP may,
even though I have a legit Win XP, fail the test and then what?

On the other hand, I know someone that has a pirated XP and it passed the
WGA test ... go figure.

Alias

Steve N.
07-09-2005, 11:45 PM
Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:

> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message
> news:uU8d8beYFHA.4024@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>
>>Winux P wrote:
>>
>>>Compulsory WGA??? What! Who are these people? For what purpose would
>>>this be for? Speed up downloads? Wouldn't it take download time + get
>>>an authenicated check? Rather than just download time?
>>>
>>>Who and what would WGA stop from downloading\updating anyway? My
>>>windows is already WGA'd, I thought this happened when MS activated
>>>it.
>>
>>It is for nothing but MS flexing its muscles over its paying customers.
>>WGA is separate from WPA. The former know as Validation, and the latter
>>as Activation. And they ar both separate and distinct from Registration.
>>And MS expects all its paying customers to learn the difference, learn the
>>differing rules of each, and to fetch when MS tell them to. It's getting
>>to the point where the OS is technically easier to use, than knowing and
>>complying with all of MS rules & policies surrounding its copy-protection
>>schemes!
>>
>>--
>
>
> Kurt the customers don't need to know or understand anything in particular,
> activation can be one click and once they have the control installed then
> WGA will be invisible to them too.
> Only those not using genuine licensed product will have an issue.
>

Mike, of course MS has the right to ensure that installations of their
software are legitimate before providing support (product updates are
support), and that justifies the use of PA and WGA, however there are
many documented cases where these mechanisms have failed to identify
legitimately licensed installations, leaving legitimately licensed users
in a lurch.

What, if anything, is MS doing to correct these flaws? So far all I've
seen MS do is make it more difficult, particularly with regard to OEM
installations and "unauthorized" product keys. It no longer only applies
to major OEMs, either. Every OEM pre-install I have seen lately that is
not pre-activated encounters this.

And while we're at it, please print the keys on the COA in a font large
enough to read without a magnifying glass and quit using character
strings like "8B3B8".

Steve

David Candy
07-09-2005, 11:45 PM
They don't care about piracy. It is not about valid licensing. It is about
blurring the line between MS and you so you need to pay MS regular money
(which is what they care about - the regular part). This is a long term goal
of MS (well over 10 years) and most of their efforts have failed. Some are
Application servers (they still perserve I saw a trial program using this
technology), MSN (was not the internet at first), yearly rental of Office in
Australia (cancelled last year), Windows update, PA, and WPA. They seem to
have taken a long term approach of training consumers (Symantec watched MS
and did do it - one has to pay symantec regular sums of money to use their
product, but the products are different and MS don't naturally lead to
regular payments).

Think of the phone system. If you buy a phone it's absolutely useless
without wires and exchanges. MS wants your computer to be useless without
MSNs or whatever ends up working.

MS regards OEM software as leased software (last time I saw figures OEM
sales were over 90% of of total sales). They can't get consumers to
regularly pay them so they tie it to the life of the hardware (Source MS OEM
Product Manager for OSs in Australia at the Christmas do in 2003 - they
bribed people to come with free Office XP Professional, I took me mum so she
could get a $1200 product for free as well - she found OEM ranting boring).

MS intends to own you. Mike Brannigan is actually misleading people here,
maybe inadvertantly as he is probably quite junior (I doubt he is a
strategic executive).

"Steve N." <me@here.now> wrote in message
news:qglle.88$q4.65@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
>
> > "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message
> > news:uU8d8beYFHA.4024@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> >
> >>Winux P wrote:
> >>
> >>>Compulsory WGA??? What! Who are these people? For what purpose would
> >>>this be for? Speed up downloads? Wouldn't it take download time + get
> >>>an authenicated check? Rather than just download time?
> >>>
> >>>Who and what would WGA stop from downloading\updating anyway? My
> >>>windows is already WGA'd, I thought this happened when MS activated
> >>>it.
> >>
> >>It is for nothing but MS flexing its muscles over its paying customers.
> >>WGA is separate from WPA. The former know as Validation, and the latter
> >>as Activation. And they ar both separate and distinct from
Registration.
> >>And MS expects all its paying customers to learn the difference, learn
the
> >>differing rules of each, and to fetch when MS tell them to. It's
getting
> >>to the point where the OS is technically easier to use, than knowing and
> >>complying with all of MS rules & policies surrounding its
copy-protection
> >>schemes!
> >>
> >>--
> >
> >
> > Kurt the customers don't need to know or understand anything in
particular,
> > activation can be one click and once they have the control installed
then
> > WGA will be invisible to them too.
> > Only those not using genuine licensed product will have an issue.
> >
>
> Mike, of course MS has the right to ensure that installations of their
> software are legitimate before providing support (product updates are
> support), and that justifies the use of PA and WGA, however there are
> many documented cases where these mechanisms have failed to identify
> legitimately licensed installations, leaving legitimately licensed users
> in a lurch.
>
> What, if anything, is MS doing to correct these flaws? So far all I've
> seen MS do is make it more difficult, particularly with regard to OEM
> installations and "unauthorized" product keys. It no longer only applies
> to major OEMs, either. Every OEM pre-install I have seen lately that is
> not pre-activated encounters this.
>
> And while we're at it, please print the keys on the COA in a font large
> enough to read without a magnifying glass and quit using character
> strings like "8B3B8".
>
> Steve
>

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:45 PM
Alias wrote:
> "kurttrail" wrote
>
>>
>>
>> Total effin' lie! Legitimate users have already had and posted
>> differing problems with WGA in its voluntary form! I can't wait
>> until it is mandatory!
>>
>> --
>> Peace!
>> Kurt
>
> I can wait. The longer, the better. I have a legit Win XP but I will
> not take the test that assumes I am guilty until proven innocent as
> my XP may, even though I have a legit Win XP, fail the test and then
> what?
> On the other hand, I know someone that has a pirated XP and it passed
> the WGA test ... go figure.
>
> Alias

Yes. I can wait too, for my fellow consumers, but I will really enjoy
watching MS get reamed over this. Most people had PA hidden from them
by their OEMs, PA affected home computer builders the most, and we
aren't all that common.

WGA will be most consumers first look at copy-protection in the light of
day, and are gonna be confused as hell over it. MS is just asking for a
lot of customer discontent over this.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:45 PM
David Candy wrote:
> They don't care about piracy. It is not about valid licensing. It is
> about blurring the line between MS and you so you need to pay MS
> regular money (which is what they care about - the regular part).
> This is a long term goal of MS (well over 10 years) and most of their
> efforts have failed. Some are Application servers (they still
> perserve I saw a trial program using this technology), MSN (was not
> the internet at first), yearly rental of Office in Australia
> (cancelled last year), Windows update, PA, and WPA. They seem to have
> taken a long term approach of training consumers (Symantec watched MS
> and did do it - one has to pay symantec regular sums of money to use
> their product, but the products are different and MS don't naturally
> lead to regular payments).
>
> Think of the phone system. If you buy a phone it's absolutely useless
> without wires and exchanges. MS wants your computer to be useless
> without MSNs or whatever ends up working.
>
> MS regards OEM software as leased software (last time I saw figures
> OEM sales were over 90% of of total sales). They can't get consumers
> to regularly pay them so they tie it to the life of the hardware
> (Source MS OEM Product Manager for OSs in Australia at the Christmas
> do in 2003 - they bribed people to come with free Office XP
> Professional, I took me mum so she could get a $1200 product for free
> as well - she found OEM ranting boring).
>
> MS intends to own you. Mike Brannigan is actually misleading people
> here, maybe inadvertantly as he is probably quite junior (I doubt he
> is a strategic executive).
>

Very insightful, David. I think you've hit the nail squarely on its
head.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Alias
07-09-2005, 11:45 PM
"kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:eEseskgYFHA.3712@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Alias wrote:
>> "kurttrail" wrote
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Total effin' lie! Legitimate users have already had and posted
>>> differing problems with WGA in its voluntary form! I can't wait
>>> until it is mandatory!
>>>
>>> --
>>> Peace!
>>> Kurt
>>
>> I can wait. The longer, the better. I have a legit Win XP but I will
>> not take the test that assumes I am guilty until proven innocent as
>> my XP may, even though I have a legit Win XP, fail the test and then
>> what?
>> On the other hand, I know someone that has a pirated XP and it passed
>> the WGA test ... go figure.
>>
>> Alias
>
> Yes. I can wait too, for my fellow consumers, but I will really enjoy
> watching MS get reamed over this. Most people had PA hidden from them by
> their OEMs, PA affected home computer builders the most, and we aren't all
> that common.
>
> WGA will be most consumers first look at copy-protection in the light of
> day, and are gonna be confused as hell over it. MS is just asking for a
> lot of customer discontent over this.
>
> --
> Peace!
> Kurt

Worse PR MS has ever done.

Alias

David Candy
07-09-2005, 11:45 PM
It is anti human nature in some ways. People seem to accept it for phones
(yet only banks are hated more than phone companies).

Some psychological theories say that we have many concepts of self. Our
soul/mind, our bodies, our clothes, and our other possesions. Obviously
these are social constructs as well as biologically based. And we think of
our bodies as more important than our clothes but our clothes become part of
our concept of self.

I have never bought stolen goods. The reason for this is that such goods
aren't mine and therefore I don't want them because I can't integrate them
into my concept of self (it's somebody else).

People form strong bonds with computers. I loathe mine and hate it and MS
with passion (MS for being incompentent in OS design - at least for
Windows - CE is well designed).

The fiction that we don't buy the OS offends the sense of self. MS is
raping/assaulting us, though at a lower level of self than our bodies. This
is why police work is mostly about stealing - people consider it an assault
on a concept of self (a double whammy if it's robbery). It's why people move
after being burgled and why they say similar things, at a lower intensity,
to rape victims.

This is why EULAs generate such opposition. We buy something in a shop (I
last bought software in 1994 - MS has given me all my software for free
since then) and start to make it part of us to find out it's not. This is an
attack by MS on our very concepts of self.

But note these are social constructs. A Roman wouldn't have had problems
with it as Romans only owned their souls - there bodies weren't theirs which
is why you could kill a slave but had to honour their God - Human
relationship (I prefer them to own my soul, as I don't believe in that, and
respect my body). Or so my lecturer said in 1994 in B. App Sc (Health
Education) at Canberra University.


"kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:#mgP8mgYFHA.1044@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> David Candy wrote:
> > They don't care about piracy. It is not about valid licensing. It is
> > about blurring the line between MS and you so you need to pay MS
> > regular money (which is what they care about - the regular part).
> > This is a long term goal of MS (well over 10 years) and most of their
> > efforts have failed. Some are Application servers (they still
> > perserve I saw a trial program using this technology), MSN (was not
> > the internet at first), yearly rental of Office in Australia
> > (cancelled last year), Windows update, PA, and WPA. They seem to have
> > taken a long term approach of training consumers (Symantec watched MS
> > and did do it - one has to pay symantec regular sums of money to use
> > their product, but the products are different and MS don't naturally
> > lead to regular payments).
> >
> > Think of the phone system. If you buy a phone it's absolutely useless
> > without wires and exchanges. MS wants your computer to be useless
> > without MSNs or whatever ends up working.
> >
> > MS regards OEM software as leased software (last time I saw figures
> > OEM sales were over 90% of of total sales). They can't get consumers
> > to regularly pay them so they tie it to the life of the hardware
> > (Source MS OEM Product Manager for OSs in Australia at the Christmas
> > do in 2003 - they bribed people to come with free Office XP
> > Professional, I took me mum so she could get a $1200 product for free
> > as well - she found OEM ranting boring).
> >
> > MS intends to own you. Mike Brannigan is actually misleading people
> > here, maybe inadvertantly as he is probably quite junior (I doubt he
> > is a strategic executive).
> >
>
> Very insightful, David. I think you've hit the nail squarely on its
> head.
>
> --
> Peace!
> Kurt
> Self-anointed Moderator
> microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
> http://microscum.com/mscommunity
> "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
> "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
>
>

Mike Brannigan [MSFT]
07-09-2005, 11:45 PM
"kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:eEseskgYFHA.3712@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>
> Yes. I can wait too, for my fellow consumers, but I will really enjoy
> watching MS get reamed over this. Most people had PA hidden from them by
> their OEMs, PA affected home computer builders the most, and we aren't all
> that common.
>
> WGA will be most consumers first look at copy-protection in the light of
> day, and are gonna be confused as hell over it. MS is just asking for a
> lot of customer discontent over this.
>

Kurt they'll click one button - once; and that's all they ever will see of
WGA - hardly a huge issue or source of confusion.

--

Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups

"kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:eEseskgYFHA.3712@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Alias wrote:
>> "kurttrail" wrote
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Total effin' lie! Legitimate users have already had and posted
>>> differing problems with WGA in its voluntary form! I can't wait
>>> until it is mandatory!
>>>
>>> --
>>> Peace!
>>> Kurt
>>
>> I can wait. The longer, the better. I have a legit Win XP but I will
>> not take the test that assumes I am guilty until proven innocent as
>> my XP may, even though I have a legit Win XP, fail the test and then
>> what?
>> On the other hand, I know someone that has a pirated XP and it passed
>> the WGA test ... go figure.
>>
>> Alias
>
> Yes. I can wait too, for my fellow consumers, but I will really enjoy
> watching MS get reamed over this. Most people had PA hidden from them by
> their OEMs, PA affected home computer builders the most, and we aren't all
> that common.
>
> WGA will be most consumers first look at copy-protection in the light of
> day, and are gonna be confused as hell over it. MS is just asking for a
> lot of customer discontent over this.
>
> --
> Peace!
> Kurt
> Self-anointed Moderator
> microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
> http://microscum.com/mscommunity
> "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
> "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
>

Mike Brannigan [MSFT]
07-09-2005, 11:45 PM
"Steve N." <me@here.now> wrote in message
news:qglle.88$q4.65@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> Mike, of course MS has the right to ensure that installations of their
> software are legitimate before providing support (product updates are
> support), and that justifies the use of PA and WGA, however there are many
> documented cases where these mechanisms have failed to identify
> legitimately licensed installations, leaving legitimately licensed users
> in a lurch.
>
> What, if anything, is MS doing to correct these flaws? So far all I've
> seen MS do is make it more difficult, particularly with regard to OEM
> installations and "unauthorized" product keys. It no longer only applies
> to major OEMs, either. Every OEM pre-install I have seen lately that is
> not pre-activated encounters this.

And that is why we are trialling this now and if you have an issue we would
encourage you to call in and provide us with the feedback and allow us to
work though the issue with you too ensure these cases are minimised when we
"go live".
from http://www.microsoft.com/genuine/downloads/FAQ.aspx?displaylang=en

Q.
What should I do if I have a problem with the validation process?


A.
If you cannot resolve your problem using this FAQ, then please use the
Contact Us link at the bottom of Microsoft Download Center pages to request
additional assistance.



>
> And while we're at it, please print the keys on the COA in a font large
> enough to read without a magnifying glass and quit using character strings
> like "8B3B8".

The font used should allow you to differentiate those particular characters.
However please provide this feedback via
http://support.microsoft.com/common/survey.aspx?scid=sw;en;1208&showpage=1&ws=search

>
> Steve
>

--

Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups

"Steve N." <me@here.now> wrote in message
news:qglle.88$q4.65@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> Mike, of course MS has the right to ensure that installations of their
> software are legitimate before providing support (product updates are
> support), and that justifies the use of PA and WGA, however there are many
> documented cases where these mechanisms have failed to identify
> legitimately licensed installations, leaving legitimately licensed users
> in a lurch.
>
> What, if anything, is MS doing to correct these flaws? So far all I've
> seen MS do is make it more difficult, particularly with regard to OEM
> installations and "unauthorized" product keys. It no longer only applies
> to major OEMs, either. Every OEM pre-install I have seen lately that is
> not pre-activated encounters this.
>
> And while we're at it, please print the keys on the COA in a font large
> enough to read without a magnifying glass and quit using character strings
> like "8B3B8".
>
> Steve
>

Steve N.
07-09-2005, 11:45 PM
David Candy wrote:

> They don't care about piracy. It is not about valid licensing. It is about
> blurring the line between MS and you so you need to pay MS regular money
> (which is what they care about - the regular part). This is a long term goal
> of MS (well over 10 years) and most of their efforts have failed. Some are
> Application servers (they still perserve I saw a trial program using this
> technology), MSN (was not the internet at first), yearly rental of Office in
> Australia (cancelled last year), Windows update, PA, and WPA. They seem to
> have taken a long term approach of training consumers (Symantec watched MS
> and did do it - one has to pay symantec regular sums of money to use their
> product, but the products are different and MS don't naturally lead to
> regular payments).
>
> Think of the phone system. If you buy a phone it's absolutely useless
> without wires and exchanges. MS wants your computer to be useless without
> MSNs or whatever ends up working.
>
> MS regards OEM software as leased software (last time I saw figures OEM
> sales were over 90% of of total sales). They can't get consumers to
> regularly pay them so they tie it to the life of the hardware (Source MS OEM
> Product Manager for OSs in Australia at the Christmas do in 2003 - they
> bribed people to come with free Office XP Professional, I took me mum so she
> could get a $1200 product for free as well - she found OEM ranting boring).
>
> MS intends to own you. Mike Brannigan is actually misleading people here,
> maybe inadvertantly as he is probably quite junior (I doubt he is a
> strategic executive).

LOL! The first time I read that last line I thought it said he was
"probably a quiet janitor"! :)

Good points and you may well be right, after all MS is in business to
make money and make it quickly. Making a product that doesn't require
support and establishing harmoniuos relationsdhip with customers is
counter-productive to that end in the short term.

I await Mike's repsonse to my specific question and suggestions.

Steve

>
> "Steve N." <me@here.now> wrote in message
> news:qglle.88$q4.65@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message
>>>news:uU8d8beYFHA.4024@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Winux P wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Compulsory WGA??? What! Who are these people? For what purpose would
>>>>>this be for? Speed up downloads? Wouldn't it take download time + get
>>>>>an authenicated check? Rather than just download time?
>>>>>
>>>>>Who and what would WGA stop from downloading\updating anyway? My
>>>>>windows is already WGA'd, I thought this happened when MS activated
>>>>>it.
>>>>
>>>>It is for nothing but MS flexing its muscles over its paying customers.
>>>>WGA is separate from WPA. The former know as Validation, and the latter
>>>>as Activation. And they ar both separate and distinct from
>
> Registration.
>
>>>>And MS expects all its paying customers to learn the difference, learn
>
> the
>
>>>>differing rules of each, and to fetch when MS tell them to. It's
>
> getting
>
>>>>to the point where the OS is technically easier to use, than knowing and
>>>>complying with all of MS rules & policies surrounding its
>
> copy-protection
>
>>>>schemes!
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>
>>>
>>>Kurt the customers don't need to know or understand anything in
>
> particular,
>
>>>activation can be one click and once they have the control installed
>
> then
>
>>>WGA will be invisible to them too.
>>>Only those not using genuine licensed product will have an issue.
>>>
>>
>>Mike, of course MS has the right to ensure that installations of their
>>software are legitimate before providing support (product updates are
>>support), and that justifies the use of PA and WGA, however there are
>>many documented cases where these mechanisms have failed to identify
>>legitimately licensed installations, leaving legitimately licensed users
>>in a lurch.
>>
>>What, if anything, is MS doing to correct these flaws? So far all I've
>>seen MS do is make it more difficult, particularly with regard to OEM
>>installations and "unauthorized" product keys. It no longer only applies
>>to major OEMs, either. Every OEM pre-install I have seen lately that is
>>not pre-activated encounters this.
>>
>>And while we're at it, please print the keys on the COA in a font large
>>enough to read without a magnifying glass and quit using character
>>strings like "8B3B8".
>>
>>Steve
>>
>
>
>

Alias
07-09-2005, 11:45 PM
"Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" <mikebran@online.microsoft.com> wrote
> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote
>>
>> Yes. I can wait too, for my fellow consumers, but I will really enjoy
>> watching MS get reamed over this. Most people had PA hidden from them by
>> their OEMs, PA affected home computer builders the most, and we aren't
>> all that common.
>>
>> WGA will be most consumers first look at copy-protection in the light of
>> day, and are gonna be confused as hell over it. MS is just asking for a
>> lot of customer discontent over this.
>>
>
> Kurt they'll click one button - once; and that's all they ever will see
> of WGA - hardly a huge issue or source of confusion.
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike
> --
> Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

If one has paid for one's licence to use XP, there shouldn't be any need for
*any* buttons. You are assuming that the WGA will work on all legit
installations, an assumption that isn't true as is evidenced by the many
"false pirates" PA has found. It's the worse PR move MS has ever made:
assuming their paying customers are thieves until the paying customer proves
otherwise. Can't you see how that will make the paying customer feel a tad
uncomfortable?

Alias

Mike Brannigan [MSFT]
07-09-2005, 11:45 PM
"David Candy" <.> wrote in message
news:%23p0%23dWgYFHA.3272@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> They don't care about piracy. It is not about valid licensing. It is about
> blurring the line between MS and you so you need to pay MS regular money
> (which is what they care about - the regular part). This is a long term
> goal
> of MS (well over 10 years) and most of their efforts have failed. Some are
> Application servers (they still perserve I saw a trial program using this
> technology), MSN (was not the internet at first), yearly rental of Office
> in
> Australia (cancelled last year), Windows update, PA, and WPA. They seem to
> have taken a long term approach of training consumers (Symantec watched MS
> and did do it - one has to pay symantec regular sums of money to use their
> product, but the products are different and MS don't naturally lead to
> regular payments).
>
> Think of the phone system. If you buy a phone it's absolutely useless
> without wires and exchanges. MS wants your computer to be useless without
> MSNs or whatever ends up working.
>
> MS regards OEM software as leased software (last time I saw figures OEM
> sales were over 90% of of total sales). They can't get consumers to
> regularly pay them so they tie it to the life of the hardware (Source MS
> OEM
> Product Manager for OSs in Australia at the Christmas do in 2003 - they
> bribed people to come with free Office XP Professional, I took me mum so
> she
> could get a $1200 product for free as well - she found OEM ranting
> boring).
>
> MS intends to own you. Mike Brannigan is actually misleading people here,
> maybe inadvertantly as he is probably quite junior (I doubt he is a
> strategic executive).

Exactly how am I misleading anyone here ?
Kurt and you are the ones spreading FUD here.

As regards your last comment about me, if you bothered to do any research
you could have found my biog on any number of online sessions at
Microsoft.com etc where you would see that I'm an Enterprise Strategy and
Senior Consultant, in the Windows Platform Infrastructure Delivery Group.

--

Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups

"David Candy" <.> wrote in message
news:%23p0%23dWgYFHA.3272@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> They don't care about piracy. It is not about valid licensing. It is about
> blurring the line between MS and you so you need to pay MS regular money
> (which is what they care about - the regular part). This is a long term
> goal
> of MS (well over 10 years) and most of their efforts have failed. Some are
> Application servers (they still perserve I saw a trial program using this
> technology), MSN (was not the internet at first), yearly rental of Office
> in
> Australia (cancelled last year), Windows update, PA, and WPA. They seem to
> have taken a long term approach of training consumers (Symantec watched MS
> and did do it - one has to pay symantec regular sums of money to use their
> product, but the products are different and MS don't naturally lead to
> regular payments).
>
> Think of the phone system. If you buy a phone it's absolutely useless
> without wires and exchanges. MS wants your computer to be useless without
> MSNs or whatever ends up working.
>
> MS regards OEM software as leased software (last time I saw figures OEM
> sales were over 90% of of total sales). They can't get consumers to
> regularly pay them so they tie it to the life of the hardware (Source MS
> OEM
> Product Manager for OSs in Australia at the Christmas do in 2003 - they
> bribed people to come with free Office XP Professional, I took me mum so
> she
> could get a $1200 product for free as well - she found OEM ranting
> boring).
>
> MS intends to own you. Mike Brannigan is actually misleading people here,
> maybe inadvertantly as he is probably quite junior (I doubt he is a
> strategic executive).
>
> "Steve N." <me@here.now> wrote in message
> news:qglle.88$q4.65@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
>>
>> > "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in
>> > message
>> > news:uU8d8beYFHA.4024@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> >
>> >>Winux P wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>Compulsory WGA??? What! Who are these people? For what purpose would
>> >>>this be for? Speed up downloads? Wouldn't it take download time + get
>> >>>an authenicated check? Rather than just download time?
>> >>>
>> >>>Who and what would WGA stop from downloading\updating anyway? My
>> >>>windows is already WGA'd, I thought this happened when MS activated
>> >>>it.
>> >>
>> >>It is for nothing but MS flexing its muscles over its paying customers.
>> >>WGA is separate from WPA. The former know as Validation, and the
>> >>latter
>> >>as Activation. And they ar both separate and distinct from
> Registration.
>> >>And MS expects all its paying customers to learn the difference, learn
> the
>> >>differing rules of each, and to fetch when MS tell them to. It's
> getting
>> >>to the point where the OS is technically easier to use, than knowing
>> >>and
>> >>complying with all of MS rules & policies surrounding its
> copy-protection
>> >>schemes!
>> >>
>> >>--
>> >
>> >
>> > Kurt the customers don't need to know or understand anything in
> particular,
>> > activation can be one click and once they have the control installed
> then
>> > WGA will be invisible to them too.
>> > Only those not using genuine licensed product will have an issue.
>> >
>>
>> Mike, of course MS has the right to ensure that installations of their
>> software are legitimate before providing support (product updates are
>> support), and that justifies the use of PA and WGA, however there are
>> many documented cases where these mechanisms have failed to identify
>> legitimately licensed installations, leaving legitimately licensed users
>> in a lurch.
>>
>> What, if anything, is MS doing to correct these flaws? So far all I've
>> seen MS do is make it more difficult, particularly with regard to OEM
>> installations and "unauthorized" product keys. It no longer only applies
>> to major OEMs, either. Every OEM pre-install I have seen lately that is
>> not pre-activated encounters this.
>>
>> And while we're at it, please print the keys on the COA in a font large
>> enough to read without a magnifying glass and quit using character
>> strings like "8B3B8".
>>
>> Steve
>>
>
>

David Candy
07-09-2005, 11:45 PM
You are under 40 or you wouldn't be making stupid statements about fonts.
Don't worry when I was under 40 I couldn't understand why noone liked my
lovely 8 point writing and reluctantly went to 10 pts. I wouldn't be able to
read 10pt today either.


"Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" <mikebran@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:#UdNXEhYFHA.796@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> "Steve N." <me@here.now> wrote in message
> news:qglle.88$q4.65@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > Mike, of course MS has the right to ensure that installations of their
> > software are legitimate before providing support (product updates are
> > support), and that justifies the use of PA and WGA, however there are
many
> > documented cases where these mechanisms have failed to identify
> > legitimately licensed installations, leaving legitimately licensed users
> > in a lurch.
> >
> > What, if anything, is MS doing to correct these flaws? So far all I've
> > seen MS do is make it more difficult, particularly with regard to OEM
> > installations and "unauthorized" product keys. It no longer only applies
> > to major OEMs, either. Every OEM pre-install I have seen lately that is
> > not pre-activated encounters this.
>
> And that is why we are trialling this now and if you have an issue we
would
> encourage you to call in and provide us with the feedback and allow us to
> work though the issue with you too ensure these cases are minimised when
we
> "go live".
> from http://www.microsoft.com/genuine/downloads/FAQ.aspx?displaylang=en
>
> Q.
> What should I do if I have a problem with the validation process?
>
>
> A.
> If you cannot resolve your problem using this FAQ, then please use
the
> Contact Us link at the bottom of Microsoft Download Center pages to
request
> additional assistance.
>
>
>
> >
> > And while we're at it, please print the keys on the COA in a font large
> > enough to read without a magnifying glass and quit using character
strings
> > like "8B3B8".
>
> The font used should allow you to differentiate those particular
characters.
> However please provide this feedback via
>
http://support.microsoft.com/common/survey.aspx?scid=sw;en;1208&showpage=1&w
s=search
>
> >
> > Steve
> >
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike
> --
> Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]
>
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights
>
> Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
> newsgroups
>
> "Steve N." <me@here.now> wrote in message
> news:qglle.88$q4.65@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > Mike, of course MS has the right to ensure that installations of their
> > software are legitimate before providing support (product updates are
> > support), and that justifies the use of PA and WGA, however there are
many
> > documented cases where these mechanisms have failed to identify
> > legitimately licensed installations, leaving legitimately licensed users
> > in a lurch.
> >
> > What, if anything, is MS doing to correct these flaws? So far all I've
> > seen MS do is make it more difficult, particularly with regard to OEM
> > installations and "unauthorized" product keys. It no longer only applies
> > to major OEMs, either. Every OEM pre-install I have seen lately that is
> > not pre-activated encounters this.
> >
> > And while we're at it, please print the keys on the COA in a font large
> > enough to read without a magnifying glass and quit using character
strings
> > like "8B3B8".
> >
> > Steve
> >
>
>

Mike Brannigan [MSFT]
07-09-2005, 11:45 PM
"Alias" <aka@[notme]maskedandanonymous.org> wrote in message
news:%23LgowEhYFHA.1796@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>
> "Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" <mikebran@online.microsoft.com> wrote
>> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote
>>>
>>> Yes. I can wait too, for my fellow consumers, but I will really enjoy
>>> watching MS get reamed over this. Most people had PA hidden from them
>>> by their OEMs, PA affected home computer builders the most, and we
>>> aren't all that common.
>>>
>>> WGA will be most consumers first look at copy-protection in the light of
>>> day, and are gonna be confused as hell over it. MS is just asking for a
>>> lot of customer discontent over this.
>>>
>>
>> Kurt they'll click one button - once; and that's all they ever will see
>> of WGA - hardly a huge issue or source of confusion.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Mike
>> --
>> Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]
>
> If one has paid for one's licence to use XP, there shouldn't be any need
> for *any* buttons. You are assuming that the WGA will work on all legit
> installations, an assumption that isn't true as is evidenced by the many
> "false pirates" PA has found. It's the worse PR move MS has ever made:
> assuming their paying customers are thieves until the paying customer
> proves otherwise. Can't you see how that will make the paying customer
> feel a tad uncomfortable?
>

When you visit the download site we have no way of knowing if you are a
legitimate customer or not. There is no assumption here - you are actually
an unknown state. WGA resolves that state then and for future reference to
ensure that you as a paying licensed customer are able to access the
appropriate content while those using stolen/pirated software can not.
You go to the site first time - click the button and your done. Hardly a
cause for any uncomfortable feeling for the paying customer.

--

Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups

"Alias" <aka@[notme]maskedandanonymous.org> wrote in message
news:%23LgowEhYFHA.1796@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>
> "Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" <mikebran@online.microsoft.com> wrote
>> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote
>>>
>>> Yes. I can wait too, for my fellow consumers, but I will really enjoy
>>> watching MS get reamed over this. Most people had PA hidden from them
>>> by their OEMs, PA affected home computer builders the most, and we
>>> aren't all that common.
>>>
>>> WGA will be most consumers first look at copy-protection in the light of
>>> day, and are gonna be confused as hell over it. MS is just asking for a
>>> lot of customer discontent over this.
>>>
>>
>> Kurt they'll click one button - once; and that's all they ever will see
>> of WGA - hardly a huge issue or source of confusion.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Mike
>> --
>> Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]
>
> If one has paid for one's licence to use XP, there shouldn't be any need
> for *any* buttons. You are assuming that the WGA will work on all legit
> installations, an assumption that isn't true as is evidenced by the many
> "false pirates" PA has found. It's the worse PR move MS has ever made:
> assuming their paying customers are thieves until the paying customer
> proves otherwise. Can't you see how that will make the paying customer
> feel a tad uncomfortable?
>
> Alias
>

Alias
07-09-2005, 11:45 PM
"Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" <mikebran@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:u3XpfMhYFHA.3096@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> "Alias" <aka@[notme]maskedandanonymous.org> wrote in message
> news:%23LgowEhYFHA.1796@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>
>> "Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" <mikebran@online.microsoft.com> wrote
>>> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote
>>>>
>>>> Yes. I can wait too, for my fellow consumers, but I will really enjoy
>>>> watching MS get reamed over this. Most people had PA hidden from them
>>>> by their OEMs, PA affected home computer builders the most, and we
>>>> aren't all that common.
>>>>
>>>> WGA will be most consumers first look at copy-protection in the light
>>>> of day, and are gonna be confused as hell over it. MS is just asking
>>>> for a lot of customer discontent over this.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Kurt they'll click one button - once; and that's all they ever will see
>>> of WGA - hardly a huge issue or source of confusion.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Mike
>>> --
>>> Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]
>>
>> If one has paid for one's licence to use XP, there shouldn't be any need
>> for *any* buttons. You are assuming that the WGA will work on all legit
>> installations, an assumption that isn't true as is evidenced by the many
>> "false pirates" PA has found. It's the worse PR move MS has ever made:
>> assuming their paying customers are thieves until the paying customer
>> proves otherwise. Can't you see how that will make the paying customer
>> feel a tad uncomfortable?
>>
>
> When you visit the download site we have no way of knowing if you are a
> legitimate customer or not. There is no assumption here - you are
> actually an unknown state. WGA resolves that state then and for future
> reference to ensure that you as a paying licensed customer are able to
> access the appropriate content while those using stolen/pirated software
> can not.
> You go to the site first time - click the button and your done. Hardly a
> cause for any uncomfortable feeling for the paying customer.

If, of course, WGA works like it should. PA has proven that that may very
well not be the case. Then the paying customer has to call India and, maybe,
get the validation. That is a PITA, no matter how you want to defend it.

The pirates have circumvented needing to do this so they aren't affected.
Only the paying customers are and that is not right.

Just curious, though, I live in Spain but have an English (USA) XP Pro. If I
ever have to call MS, would I call Spain or India or Latin America?

Alias
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike
> --
> Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]
>
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights
>
> Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
> newsgroups
>
> "Alias" <aka@[notme]maskedandanonymous.org> wrote in message
> news:%23LgowEhYFHA.1796@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>
>> "Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" <mikebran@online.microsoft.com> wrote
>>> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote
>>>>
>>>> Yes. I can wait too, for my fellow consumers, but I will really enjoy
>>>> watching MS get reamed over this. Most people had PA hidden from them
>>>> by their OEMs, PA affected home computer builders the most, and we
>>>> aren't all that common.
>>>>
>>>> WGA will be most consumers first look at copy-protection in the light
>>>> of day, and are gonna be confused as hell over it. MS is just asking
>>>> for a lot of customer discontent over this.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Kurt they'll click one button - once; and that's all they ever will see
>>> of WGA - hardly a huge issue or source of confusion.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Mike
>>> --
>>> Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]
>>
>> If one has paid for one's licence to use XP, there shouldn't be any need
>> for *any* buttons. You are assuming that the WGA will work on all legit
>> installations, an assumption that isn't true as is evidenced by the many
>> "false pirates" PA has found. It's the worse PR move MS has ever made:
>> assuming their paying customers are thieves until the paying customer
>> proves otherwise. Can't you see how that will make the paying customer
>> feel a tad uncomfortable?
>>
>> Alias
>>
>
>

David Candy
07-09-2005, 11:45 PM
FUD is a microsoft tactic learnt from IBM. What untrue thing have I said. I
used to read computer magazines incl trade mags. Everything I've said comes
from MS. This is MS's explicit goal.

Well I can't as MS uses it own software which means I often can't view
anything on your site. I use google's cache of MS site if I have to view
something.

Perhaps you could deal with a 2 year old theft and fraud attempt by MS. I
bought a Microsoft keyboard. It's shit. It's highly directional and really
often takes me 2 or 3 attemps to type anything.
Further it wasn't a IBM PC Compatable keyboard. The keys are in the wrong
place. It's a stupid colour (so one can barely read the keys).

This is plain fraud.


"Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" <mikebran@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:e7f6VIhYFHA.3364@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> "David Candy" <.> wrote in message
> news:%23p0%23dWgYFHA.3272@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> > They don't care about piracy. It is not about valid licensing. It is
about
> > blurring the line between MS and you so you need to pay MS regular money
> > (which is what they care about - the regular part). This is a long term
> > goal
> > of MS (well over 10 years) and most of their efforts have failed. Some
are
> > Application servers (they still perserve I saw a trial program using
this
> > technology), MSN (was not the internet at first), yearly rental of
Office
> > in
> > Australia (cancelled last year), Windows update, PA, and WPA. They seem
to
> > have taken a long term approach of training consumers (Symantec watched
MS
> > and did do it - one has to pay symantec regular sums of money to use
their
> > product, but the products are different and MS don't naturally lead to
> > regular payments).
> >
> > Think of the phone system. If you buy a phone it's absolutely useless
> > without wires and exchanges. MS wants your computer to be useless
without
> > MSNs or whatever ends up working.
> >
> > MS regards OEM software as leased software (last time I saw figures OEM
> > sales were over 90% of of total sales). They can't get consumers to
> > regularly pay them so they tie it to the life of the hardware (Source MS
> > OEM
> > Product Manager for OSs in Australia at the Christmas do in 2003 - they
> > bribed people to come with free Office XP Professional, I took me mum so
> > she
> > could get a $1200 product for free as well - she found OEM ranting
> > boring).
> >
> > MS intends to own you. Mike Brannigan is actually misleading people
here,
> > maybe inadvertantly as he is probably quite junior (I doubt he is a
> > strategic executive).
>
> Exactly how am I misleading anyone here ?
> Kurt and you are the ones spreading FUD here.
>
> As regards your last comment about me, if you bothered to do any research
> you could have found my biog on any number of online sessions at
> Microsoft.com etc where you would see that I'm an Enterprise Strategy and
> Senior Consultant, in the Windows Platform Infrastructure Delivery Group.
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike
> --
> Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]
>
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights
>
> Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
> newsgroups
>
> "David Candy" <.> wrote in message
> news:%23p0%23dWgYFHA.3272@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> > They don't care about piracy. It is not about valid licensing. It is
about
> > blurring the line between MS and you so you need to pay MS regular money
> > (which is what they care about - the regular part). This is a long term
> > goal
> > of MS (well over 10 years) and most of their efforts have failed. Some
are
> > Application servers (they still perserve I saw a trial program using
this
> > technology), MSN (was not the internet at first), yearly rental of
Office
> > in
> > Australia (cancelled last year), Windows update, PA, and WPA. They seem
to
> > have taken a long term approach of training consumers (Symantec watched
MS
> > and did do it - one has to pay symantec regular sums of money to use
their
> > product, but the products are different and MS don't naturally lead to
> > regular payments).
> >
> > Think of the phone system. If you buy a phone it's absolutely useless
> > without wires and exchanges. MS wants your computer to be useless
without
> > MSNs or whatever ends up working.
> >
> > MS regards OEM software as leased software (last time I saw figures OEM
> > sales were over 90% of of total sales). They can't get consumers to
> > regularly pay them so they tie it to the life of the hardware (Source MS
> > OEM
> > Product Manager for OSs in Australia at the Christmas do in 2003 - they
> > bribed people to come with free Office XP Professional, I took me mum so
> > she
> > could get a $1200 product for free as well - she found OEM ranting
> > boring).
> >
> > MS intends to own you. Mike Brannigan is actually misleading people
here,
> > maybe inadvertantly as he is probably quite junior (I doubt he is a
> > strategic executive).
> >
> > "Steve N." <me@here.now> wrote in message
> > news:qglle.88$q4.65@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >> Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
> >>
> >> > "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in
> >> > message
> >> > news:uU8d8beYFHA.4024@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> >> >
> >> >>Winux P wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>Compulsory WGA??? What! Who are these people? For what purpose would
> >> >>>this be for? Speed up downloads? Wouldn't it take download time +
get
> >> >>>an authenicated check? Rather than just download time?
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Who and what would WGA stop from downloading\updating anyway? My
> >> >>>windows is already WGA'd, I thought this happened when MS activated
> >> >>>it.
> >> >>
> >> >>It is for nothing but MS flexing its muscles over its paying
customers.
> >> >>WGA is separate from WPA. The former know as Validation, and the
> >> >>latter
> >> >>as Activation. And they ar both separate and distinct from
> > Registration.
> >> >>And MS expects all its paying customers to learn the difference,
learn
> > the
> >> >>differing rules of each, and to fetch when MS tell them to. It's
> > getting
> >> >>to the point where the OS is technically easier to use, than knowing
> >> >>and
> >> >>complying with all of MS rules & policies surrounding its
> > copy-protection
> >> >>schemes!
> >> >>
> >> >>--
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Kurt the customers don't need to know or understand anything in
> > particular,
> >> > activation can be one click and once they have the control installed
> > then
> >> > WGA will be invisible to them too.
> >> > Only those not using genuine licensed product will have an issue.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Mike, of course MS has the right to ensure that installations of their
> >> software are legitimate before providing support (product updates are
> >> support), and that justifies the use of PA and WGA, however there are
> >> many documented cases where these mechanisms have failed to identify
> >> legitimately licensed installations, leaving legitimately licensed
users
> >> in a lurch.
> >>
> >> What, if anything, is MS doing to correct these flaws? So far all I've
> >> seen MS do is make it more difficult, particularly with regard to OEM
> >> installations and "unauthorized" product keys. It no longer only
applies
> >> to major OEMs, either. Every OEM pre-install I have seen lately that is
> >> not pre-activated encounters this.
> >>
> >> And while we're at it, please print the keys on the COA in a font large
> >> enough to read without a magnifying glass and quit using character
> >> strings like "8B3B8".
> >>
> >> Steve
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:45 PM
Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in
> message news:eEseskgYFHA.3712@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>>
>> Yes. I can wait too, for my fellow consumers, but I will really
>> enjoy watching MS get reamed over this. Most people had PA hidden
>> from them by their OEMs, PA affected home computer builders the
>> most, and we aren't all that common.
>>
>> WGA will be most consumers first look at copy-protection in the
>> light of day, and are gonna be confused as hell over it. MS is just
>> asking for a lot of customer discontent over this.
>>
>
> Kurt they'll click one button - once; and that's all they ever will
> see of WGA - hardly a huge issue or source of confusion.

When it fails. When they'll have to revalidate. When requesting a
download and having the page it rechecked and the redirecting. Over why
their legit OS doesn't validate and their buddy that has a pirated OS
had no problem validating.

And many, many more.


--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:45 PM
Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
> "Alias" <aka@[notme]maskedandanonymous.org> wrote in message
> news:%23LgowEhYFHA.1796@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>
>> "Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" <mikebran@online.microsoft.com> wrote
>>> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote
>>>>
>>>> Yes. I can wait too, for my fellow consumers, but I will really
>>>> enjoy watching MS get reamed over this. Most people had PA hidden
>>>> from them by their OEMs, PA affected home computer builders the
>>>> most, and we aren't all that common.
>>>>
>>>> WGA will be most consumers first look at copy-protection in the
>>>> light of day, and are gonna be confused as hell over it. MS is
>>>> just asking for a lot of customer discontent over this.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Kurt they'll click one button - once; and that's all they ever
>>> will see of WGA - hardly a huge issue or source of confusion.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Mike
>>> --
>>> Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]
>>
>> If one has paid for one's licence to use XP, there shouldn't be any
>> need for *any* buttons. You are assuming that the WGA will work on
>> all legit installations, an assumption that isn't true as is
>> evidenced by the many "false pirates" PA has found. It's the worse
>> PR move MS has ever made: assuming their paying customers are
>> thieves until the paying customer proves otherwise. Can't you see
>> how that will make the paying customer feel a tad uncomfortable?
>>
>
> When you visit the download site we have no way of knowing if you are
> a legitimate customer or not. There is no assumption here - you are
> actually an unknown state. WGA resolves that state then and for
> future reference to ensure that you as a paying licensed customer are
> able to access the appropriate content while those using
> stolen/pirated software can not. You go to the site first time - click
> the button and your done. Hardly a cause for any uncomfortable feeling
> for the paying customer.
>

Wrong. Why? Because every time you request another download, it
rechecks its, and slows down the process of downloading. And if I
notice the extra time it takes on a broadband connection, those on
dial-up are definitely gonna wonder what is going on.

All you guys are doing is adding another layer of BS tho go wrong for
your legitimate customers. And even now, when so few have voluntarily
validated, and we have seen problems of people with legit OSs being
refused, when it becomes mandatory, its gonna be total confusion. And
don't ya'll have enough people having trouble accessing WinUpdate, just
to add something else that can go wrong?

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

David Candy
07-09-2005, 11:45 PM
My point being noone is in charge of anything at MS. You just generate
shoddy work. If you look at your title (I'm beginning to think you may be a
janitor with a silly title like you have) note you keep refering to it as a
platform. Those days are passed. It no longer is a platform. It is the end
product. But a very poor one. People use Windows not applications that run
on Windows.

I'm forced to use crap products like adobe's acrobat - a non windows
program.

It should work and it should work the same way (my solution is to prevent
acrobat from running on any windows machine - it will soon become a non
standard).

Lets take an example of MS coding with Autocomplete.

Start - Run, double clicking the box does not open the list.
Search Pane, double clicking the box does not open the list.
Forms on web pages, dbl clicking the list does open the list as it should.

While Start - Run is older than dbl clicking edit boxes on web page noone
bothered to go back and fix Explorer or edit boxes generally. Search Pane is
the same age. Noone bothered to apply the same UI standards to Search as web
forms.

It's this attitude of total contempt for the user. It was MS's idea to turn
Windows from a platform to a complete product with your built in My Pics, My
Music, and WMP (among other features). You pander to OEMs at your end users
expense (unable to repair install etc) and pander to developers also at your
end users expense (acrobat having wierd menu placements, toolbar icons, MDI
interface). Remember underlying technology is unimportant - the UI is all
that matters (if Linux ever learns this you are in trouble but they are even
more incompetant than MS and it's a matter of pride for them to be that
way).

I don't have a problem with PA. Remember our relationship soured after Tony
Hynes manipulated me to move from ME groups to XP groups and all I did was
correct incorrect information about PA. Especially after an engineer from
the s3 graphic corp stalked me. It's your PA not mine. But MS is too
cowardly to stand up for themselves. You have the legal teams to cope with
hostile companies, why push it off on to me.

Now many of the above paragraphs had to be typed many times as the keyboard
is shit. Every post I make takes several attempts to type.

"Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" <mikebran@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:e7f6VIhYFHA.3364@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> "David Candy" <.> wrote in message
> news:%23p0%23dWgYFHA.3272@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> > They don't care about piracy. It is not about valid licensing. It is
about
> > blurring the line between MS and you so you need to pay MS regular money
> > (which is what they care about - the regular part). This is a long term
> > goal
> > of MS (well over 10 years) and most of their efforts have failed. Some
are
> > Application servers (they still perserve I saw a trial program using
this
> > technology), MSN (was not the internet at first), yearly rental of
Office
> > in
> > Australia (cancelled last year), Windows update, PA, and WPA. They seem
to
> > have taken a long term approach of training consumers (Symantec watched
MS
> > and did do it - one has to pay symantec regular sums of money to use
their
> > product, but the products are different and MS don't naturally lead to
> > regular payments).
> >
> > Think of the phone system. If you buy a phone it's absolutely useless
> > without wires and exchanges. MS wants your computer to be useless
without
> > MSNs or whatever ends up working.
> >
> > MS regards OEM software as leased software (last time I saw figures OEM
> > sales were over 90% of of total sales). They can't get consumers to
> > regularly pay them so they tie it to the life of the hardware (Source MS
> > OEM
> > Product Manager for OSs in Australia at the Christmas do in 2003 - they
> > bribed people to come with free Office XP Professional, I took me mum so
> > she
> > could get a $1200 product for free as well - she found OEM ranting
> > boring).
> >
> > MS intends to own you. Mike Brannigan is actually misleading people
here,
> > maybe inadvertantly as he is probably quite junior (I doubt he is a
> > strategic executive).
>
> Exactly how am I misleading anyone here ?
> Kurt and you are the ones spreading FUD here.
>
> As regards your last comment about me, if you bothered to do any research
> you could have found my biog on any number of online sessions at
> Microsoft.com etc where you would see that I'm an Enterprise Strategy and
> Senior Consultant, in the Windows Platform Infrastructure Delivery Group.
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike
> --
> Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]
>
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights
>
> Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
> newsgroups
>
> "David Candy" <.> wrote in message
> news:%23p0%23dWgYFHA.3272@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> > They don't care about piracy. It is not about valid licensing. It is
about
> > blurring the line between MS and you so you need to pay MS regular money
> > (which is what they care about - the regular part). This is a long term
> > goal
> > of MS (well over 10 years) and most of their efforts have failed. Some
are
> > Application servers (they still perserve I saw a trial program using
this
> > technology), MSN (was not the internet at first), yearly rental of
Office
> > in
> > Australia (cancelled last year), Windows update, PA, and WPA. They seem
to
> > have taken a long term approach of training consumers (Symantec watched
MS
> > and did do it - one has to pay symantec regular sums of money to use
their
> > product, but the products are different and MS don't naturally lead to
> > regular payments).
> >
> > Think of the phone system. If you buy a phone it's absolutely useless
> > without wires and exchanges. MS wants your computer to be useless
without
> > MSNs or whatever ends up working.
> >
> > MS regards OEM software as leased software (last time I saw figures OEM
> > sales were over 90% of of total sales). They can't get consumers to
> > regularly pay them so they tie it to the life of the hardware (Source MS
> > OEM
> > Product Manager for OSs in Australia at the Christmas do in 2003 - they
> > bribed people to come with free Office XP Professional, I took me mum so
> > she
> > could get a $1200 product for free as well - she found OEM ranting
> > boring).
> >
> > MS intends to own you. Mike Brannigan is actually misleading people
here,
> > maybe inadvertantly as he is probably quite junior (I doubt he is a
> > strategic executive).
> >
> > "Steve N." <me@here.now> wrote in message
> > news:qglle.88$q4.65@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >> Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
> >>
> >> > "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in
> >> > message
> >> > news:uU8d8beYFHA.4024@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> >> >
> >> >>Winux P wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>Compulsory WGA??? What! Who are these people? For what purpose would
> >> >>>this be for? Speed up downloads? Wouldn't it take download time +
get
> >> >>>an authenicated check? Rather than just download time?
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Who and what would WGA stop from downloading\updating anyway? My
> >> >>>windows is already WGA'd, I thought this happened when MS activated
> >> >>>it.
> >> >>
> >> >>It is for nothing but MS flexing its muscles over its paying
customers.
> >> >>WGA is separate from WPA. The former know as Validation, and the
> >> >>latter
> >> >>as Activation. And they ar both separate and distinct from
> > Registration.
> >> >>And MS expects all its paying customers to learn the difference,
learn
> > the
> >> >>differing rules of each, and to fetch when MS tell them to. It's
> > getting
> >> >>to the point where the OS is technically easier to use, than knowing
> >> >>and
> >> >>complying with all of MS rules & policies surrounding its
> > copy-protection
> >> >>schemes!
> >> >>
> >> >>--
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Kurt the customers don't need to know or understand anything in
> > particular,
> >> > activation can be one click and once they have the control installed
> > then
> >> > WGA will be invisible to them too.
> >> > Only those not using genuine licensed product will have an issue.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Mike, of course MS has the right to ensure that installations of their
> >> software are legitimate before providing support (product updates are
> >> support), and that justifies the use of PA and WGA, however there are
> >> many documented cases where these mechanisms have failed to identify
> >> legitimately licensed installations, leaving legitimately licensed
users
> >> in a lurch.
> >>
> >> What, if anything, is MS doing to correct these flaws? So far all I've
> >> seen MS do is make it more difficult, particularly with regard to OEM
> >> installations and "unauthorized" product keys. It no longer only
applies
> >> to major OEMs, either. Every OEM pre-install I have seen lately that is
> >> not pre-activated encounters this.
> >>
> >> And while we're at it, please print the keys on the COA in a font large
> >> enough to read without a magnifying glass and quit using character
> >> strings like "8B3B8".
> >>
> >> Steve
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:45 PM
Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
> "David Candy" <.> wrote in message
> news:%23p0%23dWgYFHA.3272@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> They don't care about piracy. It is not about valid licensing. It is
>> about blurring the line between MS and you so you need to pay MS
>> regular money (which is what they care about - the regular part).
>> This is a long term goal
>> of MS (well over 10 years) and most of their efforts have failed.
>> Some are Application servers (they still perserve I saw a trial
>> program using this technology), MSN (was not the internet at first),
>> yearly rental of Office in
>> Australia (cancelled last year), Windows update, PA, and WPA. They
>> seem to have taken a long term approach of training consumers
>> (Symantec watched MS and did do it - one has to pay symantec regular
>> sums of money to use their product, but the products are different
>> and MS don't naturally lead to regular payments).
>>
>> Think of the phone system. If you buy a phone it's absolutely useless
>> without wires and exchanges. MS wants your computer to be useless
>> without MSNs or whatever ends up working.
>>
>> MS regards OEM software as leased software (last time I saw figures
>> OEM sales were over 90% of of total sales). They can't get consumers
>> to regularly pay them so they tie it to the life of the hardware
>> (Source MS OEM
>> Product Manager for OSs in Australia at the Christmas do in 2003 -
>> they bribed people to come with free Office XP Professional, I took
>> me mum so she
>> could get a $1200 product for free as well - she found OEM ranting
>> boring).
>>
>> MS intends to own you. Mike Brannigan is actually misleading people
>> here, maybe inadvertantly as he is probably quite junior (I doubt he
>> is a strategic executive).
>
> Exactly how am I misleading anyone here ?
> Kurt and you are the ones spreading FUD here.

"Only those not using genuine licensed product will have an issue."

You have yet to explain how validation achieves your companies cliam of
faster access to downloads, when that is not logically or visibly the
reality of the situation.

You claim that no one will be confused by it, but that is patently
absurd! People can't get the difference between Registration and
Activation straight, and are constantly confusing the two here, and most
people have Activation totally hidden from them by their OEMs, but with
Validation it won't be hidden.

In its voluntary state, people had had problems with it not validating
their legit OS installed by major OEMs, and with the installation of the
ActiveX component.

> As regards your last comment about me, if you bothered to do any
> research you could have found my biog on any number of online
> sessions at Microsoft.com etc where you would see that I'm an
> Enterprise Strategy and Senior Consultant, in the Windows Platform
> Infrastructure Delivery Group.

"Consultant" sounds like you're one of the MicroSerfs that aren't
considered a full-time employee.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:45 PM
Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
> "Steve N." <me@here.now> wrote in message
> news:qglle.88$q4.65@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>> Mike, of course MS has the right to ensure that installations of
>> their software are legitimate before providing support (product
>> updates are support), and that justifies the use of PA and WGA,
>> however there are many documented cases where these mechanisms have
>> failed to identify legitimately licensed installations, leaving
>> legitimately licensed users in a lurch.
>>
>> What, if anything, is MS doing to correct these flaws? So far all
>> I've seen MS do is make it more difficult, particularly with regard
>> to OEM installations and "unauthorized" product keys. It no longer
>> only applies to major OEMs, either. Every OEM pre-install I have
>> seen lately that is not pre-activated encounters this.
>
> And that is why we are trialling this now and if you have an issue we
> would encourage you to call in and provide us with the feedback and
> allow us to work though the issue with you too ensure these cases are
> minimised when we "go live".
> from
> http://www.microsoft.com/genuine/downloads/FAQ.aspx?displaylang=en
> Q.
> What should I do if I have a problem with the validation process?
>
>
> A.
> If you cannot resolve your problem using this FAQ, then please
> use the Contact Us link at the bottom of Microsoft Download Center
> pages to request additional assistance.

And a few months back a guy reported here that he was directed to
pay-for support!

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general/browse_frm/thread/e71fc6f07d2b6638/3fe0d89d258426d0#3fe0d89d258426d0

>> And while we're at it, please print the keys on the COA in a font
>> large enough to read without a magnifying glass and quit using
>> character strings like "8B3B8".
>
> The font used should allow you to differentiate those particular
> characters. However please provide this feedback via
> http://support.microsoft.com/common/survey.aspx?scid=sw;en;1208&showpage=1&ws=search

And you say I'm the one FUDing here! This has been a complaint for a
long time about how MS prints up PKs! 8's and B's have always been hard
to differentiate on ALL MS PK labels.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

David Candy
07-09-2005, 11:45 PM
If his ms email username is the same as he posts here as then he is full
time.
"kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:uxRRBphYFHA.2684@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
> > "David Candy" <.> wrote in message
> > news:%23p0%23dWgYFHA.3272@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> >> They don't care about piracy. It is not about valid licensing. It is
> >> about blurring the line between MS and you so you need to pay MS
> >> regular money (which is what they care about - the regular part).
> >> This is a long term goal
> >> of MS (well over 10 years) and most of their efforts have failed.
> >> Some are Application servers (they still perserve I saw a trial
> >> program using this technology), MSN (was not the internet at first),
> >> yearly rental of Office in
> >> Australia (cancelled last year), Windows update, PA, and WPA. They
> >> seem to have taken a long term approach of training consumers
> >> (Symantec watched MS and did do it - one has to pay symantec regular
> >> sums of money to use their product, but the products are different
> >> and MS don't naturally lead to regular payments).
> >>
> >> Think of the phone system. If you buy a phone it's absolutely useless
> >> without wires and exchanges. MS wants your computer to be useless
> >> without MSNs or whatever ends up working.
> >>
> >> MS regards OEM software as leased software (last time I saw figures
> >> OEM sales were over 90% of of total sales). They can't get consumers
> >> to regularly pay them so they tie it to the life of the hardware
> >> (Source MS OEM
> >> Product Manager for OSs in Australia at the Christmas do in 2003 -
> >> they bribed people to come with free Office XP Professional, I took
> >> me mum so she
> >> could get a $1200 product for free as well - she found OEM ranting
> >> boring).
> >>
> >> MS intends to own you. Mike Brannigan is actually misleading people
> >> here, maybe inadvertantly as he is probably quite junior (I doubt he
> >> is a strategic executive).
> >
> > Exactly how am I misleading anyone here ?
> > Kurt and you are the ones spreading FUD here.
>
> "Only those not using genuine licensed product will have an issue."
>
> You have yet to explain how validation achieves your companies cliam of
> faster access to downloads, when that is not logically or visibly the
> reality of the situation.
>
> You claim that no one will be confused by it, but that is patently
> absurd! People can't get the difference between Registration and
> Activation straight, and are constantly confusing the two here, and most
> people have Activation totally hidden from them by their OEMs, but with
> Validation it won't be hidden.
>
> In its voluntary state, people had had problems with it not validating
> their legit OS installed by major OEMs, and with the installation of the
> ActiveX component.
>
> > As regards your last comment about me, if you bothered to do any
> > research you could have found my biog on any number of online
> > sessions at Microsoft.com etc where you would see that I'm an
> > Enterprise Strategy and Senior Consultant, in the Windows Platform
> > Infrastructure Delivery Group.
>
> "Consultant" sounds like you're one of the MicroSerfs that aren't
> considered a full-time employee.
>
> --
> Peace!
> Kurt
> Self-anointed Moderator
> microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
> http://microscum.com/mscommunity
> "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
> "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
>
>

Mike Brannigan [MSFT]
07-09-2005, 11:45 PM
"kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:uxRRBphYFHA.2684@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
> "Only those not using genuine licensed product will have an issue."
>
> You have yet to explain how validation achieves your companies cliam of
> faster access to downloads, when that is not logically or visibly the
> reality of the situation.
>

If you are WGA covered through the use of the control etc then you will not
have to potentially go through a manual process such as entering your
PID/COA to gain access to the downloads - much as you can do today if you
are not using IE or have an issue under WGA.


> You claim that no one will be confused by it, but that is patently absurd!
> People can't get the difference between Registration and Activation
> straight, and are constantly confusing the two here, and most people have
> Activation totally hidden from them by their OEMs, but with Validation it
> won't be hidden.
>

One click - one time. As I have already said. This is hardly confusing.
The user does not have to type anything etc (unlike registration etc)

> In its voluntary state, people had had problems with it not validating
> their legit OS installed by major OEMs, and with the installation of the
> ActiveX component.
>
>> As regards your last comment about me, if you bothered to do any
>> research you could have found my biog on any number of online
>> sessions at Microsoft.com etc where you would see that I'm an
>> Enterprise Strategy and Senior Consultant, in the Windows Platform
>> Infrastructure Delivery Group.
>
> "Consultant" sounds like you're one of the MicroSerfs that aren't
> considered a full-time employee.
>

Our agency or vendor staff have i- and v- e-mail addresses mine is a FTE
address. Also you appear to be unaware of Microsoft Services which now
contains Microsoft Consultancy Services (MCS) where the staff carry the
consultant job group title.
see
http://www.microsoft.com/services/microsoftservices/cons.mspx

We are much more then just a software company.
--

Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups

"kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:uxRRBphYFHA.2684@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
>> "David Candy" <.> wrote in message
>> news:%23p0%23dWgYFHA.3272@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>> They don't care about piracy. It is not about valid licensing. It is
>>> about blurring the line between MS and you so you need to pay MS
>>> regular money (which is what they care about - the regular part).
>>> This is a long term goal
>>> of MS (well over 10 years) and most of their efforts have failed.
>>> Some are Application servers (they still perserve I saw a trial
>>> program using this technology), MSN (was not the internet at first),
>>> yearly rental of Office in
>>> Australia (cancelled last year), Windows update, PA, and WPA. They
>>> seem to have taken a long term approach of training consumers
>>> (Symantec watched MS and did do it - one has to pay symantec regular
>>> sums of money to use their product, but the products are different
>>> and MS don't naturally lead to regular payments).
>>>
>>> Think of the phone system. If you buy a phone it's absolutely useless
>>> without wires and exchanges. MS wants your computer to be useless
>>> without MSNs or whatever ends up working.
>>>
>>> MS regards OEM software as leased software (last time I saw figures
>>> OEM sales were over 90% of of total sales). They can't get consumers
>>> to regularly pay them so they tie it to the life of the hardware
>>> (Source MS OEM
>>> Product Manager for OSs in Australia at the Christmas do in 2003 -
>>> they bribed people to come with free Office XP Professional, I took
>>> me mum so she
>>> could get a $1200 product for free as well - she found OEM ranting
>>> boring).
>>>
>>> MS intends to own you. Mike Brannigan is actually misleading people
>>> here, maybe inadvertantly as he is probably quite junior (I doubt he
>>> is a strategic executive).
>>
>> Exactly how am I misleading anyone here ?
>> Kurt and you are the ones spreading FUD here.
>
> "Only those not using genuine licensed product will have an issue."
>
> You have yet to explain how validation achieves your companies cliam of
> faster access to downloads, when that is not logically or visibly the
> reality of the situation.
>
> You claim that no one will be confused by it, but that is patently absurd!
> People can't get the difference between Registration and Activation
> straight, and are constantly confusing the two here, and most people have
> Activation totally hidden from them by their OEMs, but with Validation it
> won't be hidden.
>
> In its voluntary state, people had had problems with it not validating
> their legit OS installed by major OEMs, and with the installation of the
> ActiveX component.
>
>> As regards your last comment about me, if you bothered to do any
>> research you could have found my biog on any number of online
>> sessions at Microsoft.com etc where you would see that I'm an
>> Enterprise Strategy and Senior Consultant, in the Windows Platform
>> Infrastructure Delivery Group.
>
> "Consultant" sounds like you're one of the MicroSerfs that aren't
> considered a full-time employee.
>
> --
> Peace!
> Kurt
> Self-anointed Moderator
> microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
> http://microscum.com/mscommunity
> "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
> "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
>

Mike Brannigan [MSFT]
07-09-2005, 11:45 PM
"Alias" <aka@[notme]maskedandanonymous.org> wrote in message
news:uSxYnUhYFHA.1796@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>
> Just curious, though, I live in Spain but have an English (USA) XP Pro. If
> I ever have to call MS, would I call Spain or India or Latin America?
>

It depends on what you are calling for.
--

Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups

"Alias" <aka@[notme]maskedandanonymous.org> wrote in message
news:uSxYnUhYFHA.1796@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>
> "Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" <mikebran@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:u3XpfMhYFHA.3096@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> "Alias" <aka@[notme]maskedandanonymous.org> wrote in message
>> news:%23LgowEhYFHA.1796@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>> "Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" <mikebran@online.microsoft.com> wrote
>>>> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. I can wait too, for my fellow consumers, but I will really enjoy
>>>>> watching MS get reamed over this. Most people had PA hidden from them
>>>>> by their OEMs, PA affected home computer builders the most, and we
>>>>> aren't all that common.
>>>>>
>>>>> WGA will be most consumers first look at copy-protection in the light
>>>>> of day, and are gonna be confused as hell over it. MS is just asking
>>>>> for a lot of customer discontent over this.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kurt they'll click one button - once; and that's all they ever will
>>>> see of WGA - hardly a huge issue or source of confusion.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>> --
>>>> Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]
>>>
>>> If one has paid for one's licence to use XP, there shouldn't be any need
>>> for *any* buttons. You are assuming that the WGA will work on all legit
>>> installations, an assumption that isn't true as is evidenced by the many
>>> "false pirates" PA has found. It's the worse PR move MS has ever made:
>>> assuming their paying customers are thieves until the paying customer
>>> proves otherwise. Can't you see how that will make the paying customer
>>> feel a tad uncomfortable?
>>>
>>
>> When you visit the download site we have no way of knowing if you are a
>> legitimate customer or not. There is no assumption here - you are
>> actually an unknown state. WGA resolves that state then and for future
>> reference to ensure that you as a paying licensed customer are able to
>> access the appropriate content while those using stolen/pirated software
>> can not.
>> You go to the site first time - click the button and your done. Hardly a
>> cause for any uncomfortable feeling for the paying customer.
>
> If, of course, WGA works like it should. PA has proven that that may very
> well not be the case. Then the paying customer has to call India and,
> maybe, get the validation. That is a PITA, no matter how you want to
> defend it.
>
> The pirates have circumvented needing to do this so they aren't affected.
> Only the paying customers are and that is not right.
>
> Just curious, though, I live in Spain but have an English (USA) XP Pro. If
> I ever have to call MS, would I call Spain or India or Latin America?
>
> Alias
>>
>> --
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Mike
>> --
>> Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]
>>
>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>> rights
>>
>> Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
>> newsgroups
>>
>> "Alias" <aka@[notme]maskedandanonymous.org> wrote in message
>> news:%23LgowEhYFHA.1796@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>> "Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" <mikebran@online.microsoft.com> wrote
>>>> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. I can wait too, for my fellow consumers, but I will really enjoy
>>>>> watching MS get reamed over this. Most people had PA hidden from them
>>>>> by their OEMs, PA affected home computer builders the most, and we
>>>>> aren't all that common.
>>>>>
>>>>> WGA will be most consumers first look at copy-protection in the light
>>>>> of day, and are gonna be confused as hell over it. MS is just asking
>>>>> for a lot of customer discontent over this.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kurt they'll click one button - once; and that's all they ever will
>>>> see of WGA - hardly a huge issue or source of confusion.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>> --
>>>> Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]
>>>
>>> If one has paid for one's licence to use XP, there shouldn't be any need
>>> for *any* buttons. You are assuming that the WGA will work on all legit
>>> installations, an assumption that isn't true as is evidenced by the many
>>> "false pirates" PA has found. It's the worse PR move MS has ever made:
>>> assuming their paying customers are thieves until the paying customer
>>> proves otherwise. Can't you see how that will make the paying customer
>>> feel a tad uncomfortable?
>>>
>>> Alias
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Mike Brannigan [MSFT]
07-09-2005, 11:45 PM
"kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:u93d2hhYFHA.3188@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
>>
>> When you visit the download site we have no way of knowing if you are
>> a legitimate customer or not. There is no assumption here - you are
>> actually an unknown state. WGA resolves that state then and for
>> future reference to ensure that you as a paying licensed customer are
>> able to access the appropriate content while those using
>> stolen/pirated software can not. You go to the site first time - click
>> the button and your done. Hardly a cause for any uncomfortable feeling
>> for the paying customer.
>>
>
> Wrong. Why? Because every time you request another download, it rechecks
> its, and slows down the process of downloading. And if I notice the extra
> time it takes on a broadband connection, those on dial-up are definitely
> gonna wonder what is going on.
>

That is just the current trial system.

> All you guys are doing is adding another layer of BS tho go wrong for your
> legitimate customers. And even now, when so few have voluntarily
> validated,

Since you do not have access to our internal statistics on this - you are
simply speculating (inaccurately).

> and we have seen problems of people with legit OSs being refused,

Yes we have too - and I trust those people followed the appropriate support
routes to help us sort these out and make WGA more reliable.

> when it becomes mandatory, its gonna be total confusion. And don't ya'll
> have enough people having trouble accessing WinUpdate, just to add
> something else that can go wrong?


--

Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups

"kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:u93d2hhYFHA.3188@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
>> "Alias" <aka@[notme]maskedandanonymous.org> wrote in message
>> news:%23LgowEhYFHA.1796@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>> "Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" <mikebran@online.microsoft.com> wrote
>>>> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. I can wait too, for my fellow consumers, but I will really
>>>>> enjoy watching MS get reamed over this. Most people had PA hidden
>>>>> from them by their OEMs, PA affected home computer builders the
>>>>> most, and we aren't all that common.
>>>>>
>>>>> WGA will be most consumers first look at copy-protection in the
>>>>> light of day, and are gonna be confused as hell over it. MS is
>>>>> just asking for a lot of customer discontent over this.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kurt they'll click one button - once; and that's all they ever
>>>> will see of WGA - hardly a huge issue or source of confusion.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>> --
>>>> Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]
>>>
>>> If one has paid for one's licence to use XP, there shouldn't be any
>>> need for *any* buttons. You are assuming that the WGA will work on
>>> all legit installations, an assumption that isn't true as is
>>> evidenced by the many "false pirates" PA has found. It's the worse
>>> PR move MS has ever made: assuming their paying customers are
>>> thieves until the paying customer proves otherwise. Can't you see
>>> how that will make the paying customer feel a tad uncomfortable?
>>>
>>
>> When you visit the download site we have no way of knowing if you are
>> a legitimate customer or not. There is no assumption here - you are
>> actually an unknown state. WGA resolves that state then and for
>> future reference to ensure that you as a paying licensed customer are
>> able to access the appropriate content while those using
>> stolen/pirated software can not. You go to the site first time - click
>> the button and your done. Hardly a cause for any uncomfortable feeling
>> for the paying customer.
>>
>
> Wrong. Why? Because every time you request another download, it rechecks
> its, and slows down the process of downloading. And if I notice the extra
> time it takes on a broadband connection, those on dial-up are definitely
> gonna wonder what is going on.
>
> All you guys are doing is adding another layer of BS tho go wrong for your
> legitimate customers. And even now, when so few have voluntarily
> validated, and we have seen problems of people with legit OSs being
> refused, when it becomes mandatory, its gonna be total confusion. And
> don't ya'll have enough people having trouble accessing WinUpdate, just to
> add something else that can go wrong?
>
> --
> Peace!
> Kurt
> Self-anointed Moderator
> microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
> http://microscum.com/mscommunity
> "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
> "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
>

Alias
07-09-2005, 11:45 PM
"Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" <mikebran@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:%23muu30hYFHA.2684@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> "Alias" <aka@[notme]maskedandanonymous.org> wrote in message
> news:uSxYnUhYFHA.1796@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>
>> Just curious, though, I live in Spain but have an English (USA) XP Pro.
>> If I ever have to call MS, would I call Spain or India or Latin America?
>>
>
> It depends on what you are calling for.
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike
> --
> Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

Validation or activation denial, for example. That *was* what we were
talking about, wasn't it?

Alias
>
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights
>
> Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
> newsgroups
>
> "Alias" <aka@[notme]maskedandanonymous.org> wrote in message
> news:uSxYnUhYFHA.1796@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>
>> "Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" <mikebran@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:u3XpfMhYFHA.3096@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>> "Alias" <aka@[notme]maskedandanonymous.org> wrote in message
>>> news:%23LgowEhYFHA.1796@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>>>
>>>> "Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" <mikebran@online.microsoft.com> wrote
>>>>> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. I can wait too, for my fellow consumers, but I will really
>>>>>> enjoy watching MS get reamed over this. Most people had PA hidden
>>>>>> from them by their OEMs, PA affected home computer builders the most,
>>>>>> and we aren't all that common.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WGA will be most consumers first look at copy-protection in the light
>>>>>> of day, and are gonna be confused as hell over it. MS is just asking
>>>>>> for a lot of customer discontent over this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Kurt they'll click one button - once; and that's all they ever will
>>>>> see of WGA - hardly a huge issue or source of confusion.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike
>>>>> --
>>>>> Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]
>>>>
>>>> If one has paid for one's licence to use XP, there shouldn't be any
>>>> need for *any* buttons. You are assuming that the WGA will work on all
>>>> legit installations, an assumption that isn't true as is evidenced by
>>>> the many "false pirates" PA has found. It's the worse PR move MS has
>>>> ever made: assuming their paying customers are thieves until the paying
>>>> customer proves otherwise. Can't you see how that will make the paying
>>>> customer feel a tad uncomfortable?
>>>>
>>>
>>> When you visit the download site we have no way of knowing if you are a
>>> legitimate customer or not. There is no assumption here - you are
>>> actually an unknown state. WGA resolves that state then and for future
>>> reference to ensure that you as a paying licensed customer are able to
>>> access the appropriate content while those using stolen/pirated software
>>> can not.
>>> You go to the site first time - click the button and your done. Hardly
>>> a cause for any uncomfortable feeling for the paying customer.
>>
>> If, of course, WGA works like it should. PA has proven that that may very
>> well not be the case. Then the paying customer has to call India and,
>> maybe, get the validation. That is a PITA, no matter how you want to
>> defend it.
>>
>> The pirates have circumvented needing to do this so they aren't affected.
>> Only the paying customers are and that is not right.
>>
>> Just curious, though, I live in Spain but have an English (USA) XP Pro.
>> If I ever have to call MS, would I call Spain or India or Latin America?
>>
>> Alias
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Mike
>>> --
>>> Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]
>>>
>>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>>> rights
>>>
>>> Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
>>> newsgroups
>>>
>>> "Alias" <aka@[notme]maskedandanonymous.org> wrote in message
>>> news:%23LgowEhYFHA.1796@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>>>
>>>> "Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" <mikebran@online.microsoft.com> wrote
>>>>> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. I can wait too, for my fellow consumers, but I will really
>>>>>> enjoy watching MS get reamed over this. Most people had PA hidden
>>>>>> from them by their OEMs, PA affected home computer builders the most,
>>>>>> and we aren't all that common.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WGA will be most consumers first look at copy-protection in the light
>>>>>> of day, and are gonna be confused as hell over it. MS is just asking
>>>>>> for a lot of customer discontent over this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Kurt they'll click one button - once; and that's all they ever will
>>>>> see of WGA - hardly a huge issue or source of confusion.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike
>>>>> --
>>>>> Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]
>>>>
>>>> If one has paid for one's licence to use XP, there shouldn't be any
>>>> need for *any* buttons. You are assuming that the WGA will work on all
>>>> legit installations, an assumption that isn't true as is evidenced by
>>>> the many "false pirates" PA has found. It's the worse PR move MS has
>>>> ever made: assuming their paying customers are thieves until the paying
>>>> customer proves otherwise. Can't you see how that will make the paying
>>>> customer feel a tad uncomfortable?
>>>>
>>>> Alias
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

David Candy
07-09-2005, 11:45 PM
Anyway, here's a letter from todays paper showing piracy is a christian
thing to do.

Jesus and file sharing

Students at the Sutherland Shire Christian School have obviously never read
the story about Jesus' miraculous copying of the loaves and fishes
("Students hear the word and hand in their CDs", Herald, May 26). That story
shows Jesus copying and distributing stuff for free, without concern for any
possible impact on those in the bread and fish industries. Jesus would
naturally be a file-sharer.


Colin Beck Rushcutters Bay

"Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" <mikebran@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:u90BvzhYFHA.796@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message
> news:uxRRBphYFHA.2684@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> >
> > "Only those not using genuine licensed product will have an issue."
> >
> > You have yet to explain how validation achieves your companies cliam of
> > faster access to downloads, when that is not logically or visibly the
> > reality of the situation.
> >
>
> If you are WGA covered through the use of the control etc then you will
not
> have to potentially go through a manual process such as entering your
> PID/COA to gain access to the downloads - much as you can do today if you
> are not using IE or have an issue under WGA.
>
>
> > You claim that no one will be confused by it, but that is patently
absurd!
> > People can't get the difference between Registration and Activation
> > straight, and are constantly confusing the two here, and most people
have
> > Activation totally hidden from them by their OEMs, but with Validation
it
> > won't be hidden.
> >
>
> One click - one time. As I have already said. This is hardly confusing.
> The user does not have to type anything etc (unlike registration etc)
>
> > In its voluntary state, people had had problems with it not validating
> > their legit OS installed by major OEMs, and with the installation of the
> > ActiveX component.
> >
> >> As regards your last comment about me, if you bothered to do any
> >> research you could have found my biog on any number of online
> >> sessions at Microsoft.com etc where you would see that I'm an
> >> Enterprise Strategy and Senior Consultant, in the Windows Platform
> >> Infrastructure Delivery Group.
> >
> > "Consultant" sounds like you're one of the MicroSerfs that aren't
> > considered a full-time employee.
> >
>
> Our agency or vendor staff have i- and v- e-mail addresses mine is a FTE
> address. Also you appear to be unaware of Microsoft Services which now
> contains Microsoft Consultancy Services (MCS) where the staff carry the
> consultant job group title.
> see
> http://www.microsoft.com/services/microsoftservices/cons.mspx
>
> We are much more then just a software company.
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike
> --
> Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]
>
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights
>
> Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
> newsgroups
>
> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message
> news:uxRRBphYFHA.2684@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
> >> "David Candy" <.> wrote in message
> >> news:%23p0%23dWgYFHA.3272@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> >>> They don't care about piracy. It is not about valid licensing. It is
> >>> about blurring the line between MS and you so you need to pay MS
> >>> regular money (which is what they care about - the regular part).
> >>> This is a long term goal
> >>> of MS (well over 10 years) and most of their efforts have failed.
> >>> Some are Application servers (they still perserve I saw a trial
> >>> program using this technology), MSN (was not the internet at first),
> >>> yearly rental of Office in
> >>> Australia (cancelled last year), Windows update, PA, and WPA. They
> >>> seem to have taken a long term approach of training consumers
> >>> (Symantec watched MS and did do it - one has to pay symantec regular
> >>> sums of money to use their product, but the products are different
> >>> and MS don't naturally lead to regular payments).
> >>>
> >>> Think of the phone system. If you buy a phone it's absolutely useless
> >>> without wires and exchanges. MS wants your computer to be useless
> >>> without MSNs or whatever ends up working.
> >>>
> >>> MS regards OEM software as leased software (last time I saw figures
> >>> OEM sales were over 90% of of total sales). They can't get consumers
> >>> to regularly pay them so they tie it to the life of the hardware
> >>> (Source MS OEM
> >>> Product Manager for OSs in Australia at the Christmas do in 2003 -
> >>> they bribed people to come with free Office XP Professional, I took
> >>> me mum so she
> >>> could get a $1200 product for free as well - she found OEM ranting
> >>> boring).
> >>>
> >>> MS intends to own you. Mike Brannigan is actually misleading people
> >>> here, maybe inadvertantly as he is probably quite junior (I doubt he
> >>> is a strategic executive).
> >>
> >> Exactly how am I misleading anyone here ?
> >> Kurt and you are the ones spreading FUD here.
> >
> > "Only those not using genuine licensed product will have an issue."
> >
> > You have yet to explain how validation achieves your companies cliam of
> > faster access to downloads, when that is not logically or visibly the
> > reality of the situation.
> >
> > You claim that no one will be confused by it, but that is patently
absurd!
> > People can't get the difference between Registration and Activation
> > straight, and are constantly confusing the two here, and most people
have
> > Activation totally hidden from them by their OEMs, but with Validation
it
> > won't be hidden.
> >
> > In its voluntary state, people had had problems with it not validating
> > their legit OS installed by major OEMs, and with the installation of the
> > ActiveX component.
> >
> >> As regards your last comment about me, if you bothered to do any
> >> research you could have found my biog on any number of online
> >> sessions at Microsoft.com etc where you would see that I'm an
> >> Enterprise Strategy and Senior Consultant, in the Windows Platform
> >> Infrastructure Delivery Group.
> >
> > "Consultant" sounds like you're one of the MicroSerfs that aren't
> > considered a full-time employee.
> >
> > --
> > Peace!
> > Kurt
> > Self-anointed Moderator
> > microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
> > http://microscum.com/mscommunity
> > "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
> > "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
> >
>
>

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:46 PM
Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in
> message news:u93d2hhYFHA.3188@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
>>>
>>> When you visit the download site we have no way of knowing if you
>>> are a legitimate customer or not. There is no assumption here -
>>> you are actually an unknown state. WGA resolves that state then
>>> and for future reference to ensure that you as a paying licensed
>>> customer are able to access the appropriate content while those
>>> using stolen/pirated software can not. You go to the site first
>>> time - click the button and your done. Hardly a cause for any
>>> uncomfortable feeling for the paying customer.
>>>
>>
>> Wrong. Why? Because every time you request another download, it
>> rechecks its, and slows down the process of downloading. And if I
>> notice the extra time it takes on a broadband connection, those on
>> dial-up are definitely gonna wonder what is going on.
>>
>
> That is just the current trial system.

LOL! Are you saying that ya'll are gonna drop the validation rechecks?
How are you gonna know if someone is validated if ya'll don't recheck
the validation on every download request?

>
>> All you guys are doing is adding another layer of BS tho go wrong
>> for your legitimate customers. And even now, when so few have
>> voluntarily validated,
>
> Since you do not have access to our internal statistics on this - you
> are simply speculating (inaccurately).

No speculation what-so-ever! Just like adding PA caused problems for
peaple that they would never had except for addin the PA copy-protection
code on top of the OS, so will WGA cause people problems getting
downloads because of its addition.

Copy-protection doesn't do ANYTHING to make it easier for people to use
the copy-protected copyrighted material, it only makes it harder, and
that is by design.

>
>> and we have seen problems of people with legit OSs being refused,
>
> Yes we have too - and I trust those people followed the appropriate
> support routes to help us sort these out and make WGA more reliable.

Why? Is it in the effin' EULA that we are you effin' trained seals? It
ain't up to us to debug code that only makes it harder for us to get
downloads!

What scum ya'll are thinking it is OUR responsiblity to help ya'll with
your copy-protection!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:46 PM
Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in
> message news:uxRRBphYFHA.2684@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>
>> "Only those not using genuine licensed product will have an issue."
>>
>> You have yet to explain how validation achieves your companies cliam
>> of faster access to downloads, when that is not logically or visibly
>> the reality of the situation.
>>
>
> If you are WGA covered through the use of the control etc then you
> will not have to potentially go through a manual process such as
> entering your PID/COA to gain access to the downloads - much as you
> can do today if you are not using IE or have an issue under WGA.

The OS must be check each time to see if it is validated or not, and
that process is noticable, even on broadband.

Yet your company has the audacity to LIE that WGA will give people
faster access to downloads, and that is NOT the case! You accuse me of
FUD, but your company is clearly guilty of LYING! There is NO LOGICAL
way to get faster access to downloads by adding WGA checks between each
and every download.


>> You claim that no one will be confused by it, but that is patently
>> absurd! People can't get the difference between Registration and
>> Activation straight, and are constantly confusing the two here, and
>> most people have Activation totally hidden from them by their OEMs,
>> but with Validation it won't be hidden.
>>
>
> One click - one time. As I have already said. This is hardly
> confusing. The user does not have to type anything etc (unlike
> registration etc)

And then it has to recheck, each time, otherwise you wouldn't know who
to let have the download or not.

Clearly you either don't understand the WGA process, or you are
deliberately being disengenuous.

You only have to validate once, that part is correct, but each time you
request a download your download web site must check to see if the OS
has been validate or not, so it can tell whether to allow or disallow
the download requested. This checking the status of validation is slow
enough to see that it slow down the access to downloads, not speed it
up!

>
>> In its voluntary state, people had had problems with it not
>> validating their legit OS installed by major OEMs, and with the
>> installation of the ActiveX component.
>>
>>> As regards your last comment about me, if you bothered to do any
>>> research you could have found my biog on any number of online
>>> sessions at Microsoft.com etc where you would see that I'm an
>>> Enterprise Strategy and Senior Consultant, in the Windows Platform
>>> Infrastructure Delivery Group.
>>
>> "Consultant" sounds like you're one of the MicroSerfs that aren't
>> considered a full-time employee.
>>
>
> Our agency or vendor staff have i- and v- e-mail addresses mine is a
> FTE address. Also you appear to be unaware of Microsoft Services
> which now contains Microsoft Consultancy Services (MCS) where the
> staff carry the consultant job group title.
> see
> http://www.microsoft.com/services/microsoftservices/cons.mspx
>
> We are much more then just a software company.

Yeah, ya'll are the most hated corporation of any kind on the planet.
And it is a distinction that is well deserved!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Mike Brannigan [MSFT]
07-09-2005, 11:46 PM
"kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:eqleDwjYFHA.2756@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
>> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in
>> message news:uxRRBphYFHA.2684@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>> "Only those not using genuine licensed product will have an issue."
>>>
>>> You have yet to explain how validation achieves your companies cliam
>>> of faster access to downloads, when that is not logically or visibly
>>> the reality of the situation.
>>>
>>
>> If you are WGA covered through the use of the control etc then you
>> will not have to potentially go through a manual process such as
>> entering your PID/COA to gain access to the downloads - much as you
>> can do today if you are not using IE or have an issue under WGA.
>
> The OS must be check each time to see if it is validated or not, and that
> process is noticable, even on broadband.
>

Kurt - did you read what I said, If you take 2 machines one with the
plug-in and IE and one without, and they both want to download WGA protected
content. The one with the plug-in using IE will get to commence the
download without going through the longer process to validate the genuine
nature fo the OS that the other one will. That is how you get access to
downloads faster. It is not and has never been about the actual on wire
download speed.

> Yet your company has the audacity to LIE that WGA will give people faster
> access to downloads, and that is NOT the case!

See my answer above - it is NOT about download speed but about simplicity of
access to get to the point where you commence downloading.

> You accuse me of FUD, but your company is clearly guilty of LYING! There
> is NO LOGICAL way to get faster access to downloads by adding WGA checks
> between each and every download.
>

See above

>
>>> You claim that no one will be confused by it, but that is patently
>>> absurd! People can't get the difference between Registration and
>>> Activation straight, and are constantly confusing the two here, and
>>> most people have Activation totally hidden from them by their OEMs,
>>> but with Validation it won't be hidden.
>>>
>>
>> One click - one time. As I have already said. This is hardly
>> confusing. The user does not have to type anything etc (unlike
>> registration etc)
>
> And then it has to recheck, each time, otherwise you wouldn't know who to
> let have the download or not.
>

And this can be transparent to the end user. And those that cannot be WGA
validated then they have to go through the longer process. You can see this
process today if you go to download some WGA content without IE or using the
plug-in.

> Clearly you either don't understand the WGA process, or you are
> deliberately being disengenuous.
>

No, it is use that has failed to look at the process.

> You only have to validate once, that part is correct, but each time you
> request a download your download web site must check to see if the OS has
> been validate or not, so it can tell whether to allow or disallow the
> download requested. This checking the status of validation is slow enough
> to see that it slow down the access to downloads, not speed it up!
>

But it is a lot faster then you having to manually enter the COA/ID etc to
validate your OS to WGA.

>>
>>> In its voluntary state, people had had problems with it not
>>> validating their legit OS installed by major OEMs, and with the
>>> installation of the ActiveX component.
>>>
>>>> As regards your last comment about me, if you bothered to do any
>>>> research you could have found my biog on any number of online
>>>> sessions at Microsoft.com etc where you would see that I'm an
>>>> Enterprise Strategy and Senior Consultant, in the Windows Platform
>>>> Infrastructure Delivery Group.
>>>
>>> "Consultant" sounds like you're one of the MicroSerfs that aren't
>>> considered a full-time employee.
>>>
>>
>> Our agency or vendor staff have i- and v- e-mail addresses mine is a
>> FTE address. Also you appear to be unaware of Microsoft Services
>> which now contains Microsoft Consultancy Services (MCS) where the
>> staff carry the consultant job group title.
>> see
>> http://www.microsoft.com/services/microsoftservices/cons.mspx
>>
>> We are much more then just a software company.
>
> Yeah, ya'll are the most hated corporation of any kind on the planet. And
> it is a distinction that is well deserved!
>

Your opinion only.

> --
> Peace!
> Kurt
>

--

Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups

"kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:eqleDwjYFHA.2756@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
>> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in
>> message news:uxRRBphYFHA.2684@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>> "Only those not using genuine licensed product will have an issue."
>>>
>>> You have yet to explain how validation achieves your companies cliam
>>> of faster access to downloads, when that is not logically or visibly
>>> the reality of the situation.
>>>
>>
>> If you are WGA covered through the use of the control etc then you
>> will not have to potentially go through a manual process such as
>> entering your PID/COA to gain access to the downloads - much as you
>> can do today if you are not using IE or have an issue under WGA.
>
> The OS must be check each time to see if it is validated or not, and that
> process is noticable, even on broadband.
>
> Yet your company has the audacity to LIE that WGA will give people faster
> access to downloads, and that is NOT the case! You accuse me of FUD, but
> your company is clearly guilty of LYING! There is NO LOGICAL way to get
> faster access to downloads by adding WGA checks between each and every
> download.
>
>
>>> You claim that no one will be confused by it, but that is patently
>>> absurd! People can't get the difference between Registration and
>>> Activation straight, and are constantly confusing the two here, and
>>> most people have Activation totally hidden from them by their OEMs,
>>> but with Validation it won't be hidden.
>>>
>>
>> One click - one time. As I have already said. This is hardly
>> confusing. The user does not have to type anything etc (unlike
>> registration etc)
>
> And then it has to recheck, each time, otherwise you wouldn't know who to
> let have the download or not.
>
> Clearly you either don't understand the WGA process, or you are
> deliberately being disengenuous.
>
> You only have to validate once, that part is correct, but each time you
> request a download your download web site must check to see if the OS has
> been validate or not, so it can tell whether to allow or disallow the
> download requested. This checking the status of validation is slow enough
> to see that it slow down the access to downloads, not speed it up!
>
>>
>>> In its voluntary state, people had had problems with it not
>>> validating their legit OS installed by major OEMs, and with the
>>> installation of the ActiveX component.
>>>
>>>> As regards your last comment about me, if you bothered to do any
>>>> research you could have found my biog on any number of online
>>>> sessions at Microsoft.com etc where you would see that I'm an
>>>> Enterprise Strategy and Senior Consultant, in the Windows Platform
>>>> Infrastructure Delivery Group.
>>>
>>> "Consultant" sounds like you're one of the MicroSerfs that aren't
>>> considered a full-time employee.
>>>
>>
>> Our agency or vendor staff have i- and v- e-mail addresses mine is a
>> FTE address. Also you appear to be unaware of Microsoft Services
>> which now contains Microsoft Consultancy Services (MCS) where the
>> staff carry the consultant job group title.
>> see
>> http://www.microsoft.com/services/microsoftservices/cons.mspx
>>
>> We are much more then just a software company.
>
> Yeah, ya'll are the most hated corporation of any kind on the planet. And
> it is a distinction that is well deserved!
>
> --
> Peace!
> Kurt
> Self-anointed Moderator
> microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
> http://microscum.com/mscommunity
> "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
> "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
>

Ian Merrithew
07-09-2005, 11:46 PM
On Thu, 26 May 2005 23:12:04 +0100, Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:

> Kurt - did you read what I said, If you take 2 machines one with the
> plug-in and IE and one without, and they both want to download WGA protected
> content. The one with the plug-in using IE will get to commence the
> download without going through the longer process to validate the genuine
> nature fo the OS that the other one will. That is how you get access to
> downloads faster.

In other words, you took an existing method that worked just fine from an
end-users' point of view (simple, unencumbered downloads), made it more
complicated (with this "validation" crap), then tell all your users that
by jumping through 'this' hoop (plug-in) to complete validation instead of
'that' hoop (type in string of gobbledegook) you make the experience
'faster'.

What wonderfully deceptive, yet typically Microsoft, marketing. Both
hoops are slower than the original method -- that's undeniable. So simply
remove the original method from the picture and hope your users
are as dumb as a bag of hammers so they forget it ever worked any other
way.

Thanks for reminding me, once again, why I switched to Linux on my
home PC last year.

--
Ian Merrithew - ADM Systems Engineering
ian.merrithew "at" ieee.org

David Candy
07-09-2005, 11:46 PM
My neighbours, who have servants, also have a Win XP computer without sound.
They probably don't like you much.

Noone bothers to read mail in my sisters family as the machine is so
infected that it can take a minute for a menu to pop up. They hate you. Only
my neice still uses it and she only can use MSN messenger. She also hates
you.

My neighbour across the road can't wait to save enough for a mac so he can
junk XP (this is his first year out of school).

My mother has learnt to protect herself from MS. She hates you and adobe for
old times sake.

"Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" <mikebran@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:#FAfmAkYFHA.1152@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message
> news:eqleDwjYFHA.2756@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
> >> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in
> >> message news:uxRRBphYFHA.2684@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> >>>
> >>> "Only those not using genuine licensed product will have an issue."
> >>>
> >>> You have yet to explain how validation achieves your companies cliam
> >>> of faster access to downloads, when that is not logically or visibly
> >>> the reality of the situation.
> >>>
> >>
> >> If you are WGA covered through the use of the control etc then you
> >> will not have to potentially go through a manual process such as
> >> entering your PID/COA to gain access to the downloads - much as you
> >> can do today if you are not using IE or have an issue under WGA.
> >
> > The OS must be check each time to see if it is validated or not, and
that
> > process is noticable, even on broadband.
> >
>
> Kurt - did you read what I said, If you take 2 machines one with the
> plug-in and IE and one without, and they both want to download WGA
protected
> content. The one with the plug-in using IE will get to commence the
> download without going through the longer process to validate the genuine
> nature fo the OS that the other one will. That is how you get access to
> downloads faster. It is not and has never been about the actual on wire
> download speed.
>
> > Yet your company has the audacity to LIE that WGA will give people
faster
> > access to downloads, and that is NOT the case!
>
> See my answer above - it is NOT about download speed but about simplicity
of
> access to get to the point where you commence downloading.
>
> > You accuse me of FUD, but your company is clearly guilty of LYING!
There
> > is NO LOGICAL way to get faster access to downloads by adding WGA checks
> > between each and every download.
> >
>
> See above
>
> >
> >>> You claim that no one will be confused by it, but that is patently
> >>> absurd! People can't get the difference between Registration and
> >>> Activation straight, and are constantly confusing the two here, and
> >>> most people have Activation totally hidden from them by their OEMs,
> >>> but with Validation it won't be hidden.
> >>>
> >>
> >> One click - one time. As I have already said. This is hardly
> >> confusing. The user does not have to type anything etc (unlike
> >> registration etc)
> >
> > And then it has to recheck, each time, otherwise you wouldn't know who
to
> > let have the download or not.
> >
>
> And this can be transparent to the end user. And those that cannot be WGA
> validated then they have to go through the longer process. You can see
this
> process today if you go to download some WGA content without IE or using
the
> plug-in.
>
> > Clearly you either don't understand the WGA process, or you are
> > deliberately being disengenuous.
> >
>
> No, it is use that has failed to look at the process.
>
> > You only have to validate once, that part is correct, but each time you
> > request a download your download web site must check to see if the OS
has
> > been validate or not, so it can tell whether to allow or disallow the
> > download requested. This checking the status of validation is slow
enough
> > to see that it slow down the access to downloads, not speed it up!
> >
>
> But it is a lot faster then you having to manually enter the COA/ID etc to
> validate your OS to WGA.
>
> >>
> >>> In its voluntary state, people had had problems with it not
> >>> validating their legit OS installed by major OEMs, and with the
> >>> installation of the ActiveX component.
> >>>
> >>>> As regards your last comment about me, if you bothered to do any
> >>>> research you could have found my biog on any number of online
> >>>> sessions at Microsoft.com etc where you would see that I'm an
> >>>> Enterprise Strategy and Senior Consultant, in the Windows Platform
> >>>> Infrastructure Delivery Group.
> >>>
> >>> "Consultant" sounds like you're one of the MicroSerfs that aren't
> >>> considered a full-time employee.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Our agency or vendor staff have i- and v- e-mail addresses mine is a
> >> FTE address. Also you appear to be unaware of Microsoft Services
> >> which now contains Microsoft Consultancy Services (MCS) where the
> >> staff carry the consultant job group title.
> >> see
> >> http://www.microsoft.com/services/microsoftservices/cons.mspx
> >>
> >> We are much more then just a software company.
> >
> > Yeah, ya'll are the most hated corporation of any kind on the planet.
And
> > it is a distinction that is well deserved!
> >
>
> Your opinion only.
>
> > --
> > Peace!
> > Kurt
> >
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike
> --
> Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]
>
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights
>
> Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
> newsgroups
>
> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message
> news:eqleDwjYFHA.2756@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
> >> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in
> >> message news:uxRRBphYFHA.2684@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> >>>
> >>> "Only those not using genuine licensed product will have an issue."
> >>>
> >>> You have yet to explain how validation achieves your companies cliam
> >>> of faster access to downloads, when that is not logically or visibly
> >>> the reality of the situation.
> >>>
> >>
> >> If you are WGA covered through the use of the control etc then you
> >> will not have to potentially go through a manual process such as
> >> entering your PID/COA to gain access to the downloads - much as you
> >> can do today if you are not using IE or have an issue under WGA.
> >
> > The OS must be check each time to see if it is validated or not, and
that
> > process is noticable, even on broadband.
> >
> > Yet your company has the audacity to LIE that WGA will give people
faster
> > access to downloads, and that is NOT the case! You accuse me of FUD,
but
> > your company is clearly guilty of LYING! There is NO LOGICAL way to get
> > faster access to downloads by adding WGA checks between each and every
> > download.
> >
> >
> >>> You claim that no one will be confused by it, but that is patently
> >>> absurd! People can't get the difference between Registration and
> >>> Activation straight, and are constantly confusing the two here, and
> >>> most people have Activation totally hidden from them by their OEMs,
> >>> but with Validation it won't be hidden.
> >>>
> >>
> >> One click - one time. As I have already said. This is hardly
> >> confusing. The user does not have to type anything etc (unlike
> >> registration etc)
> >
> > And then it has to recheck, each time, otherwise you wouldn't know who
to
> > let have the download or not.
> >
> > Clearly you either don't understand the WGA process, or you are
> > deliberately being disengenuous.
> >
> > You only have to validate once, that part is correct, but each time you
> > request a download your download web site must check to see if the OS
has
> > been validate or not, so it can tell whether to allow or disallow the
> > download requested. This checking the status of validation is slow
enough
> > to see that it slow down the access to downloads, not speed it up!
> >
> >>
> >>> In its voluntary state, people had had problems with it not
> >>> validating their legit OS installed by major OEMs, and with the
> >>> installation of the ActiveX component.
> >>>
> >>>> As regards your last comment about me, if you bothered to do any
> >>>> research you could have found my biog on any number of online
> >>>> sessions at Microsoft.com etc where you would see that I'm an
> >>>> Enterprise Strategy and Senior Consultant, in the Windows Platform
> >>>> Infrastructure Delivery Group.
> >>>
> >>> "Consultant" sounds like you're one of the MicroSerfs that aren't
> >>> considered a full-time employee.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Our agency or vendor staff have i- and v- e-mail addresses mine is a
> >> FTE address. Also you appear to be unaware of Microsoft Services
> >> which now contains Microsoft Consultancy Services (MCS) where the
> >> staff carry the consultant job group title.
> >> see
> >> http://www.microsoft.com/services/microsoftservices/cons.mspx
> >>
> >> We are much more then just a software company.
> >
> > Yeah, ya'll are the most hated corporation of any kind on the planet.
And
> > it is a distinction that is well deserved!
> >
> > --
> > Peace!
> > Kurt
> > Self-anointed Moderator
> > microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
> > http://microscum.com/mscommunity
> > "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
> > "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
> >
>
>

Steve N.
07-09-2005, 11:46 PM
Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:

> "Steve N." <me@here.now> wrote in message
> news:qglle.88$q4.65@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>Mike, of course MS has the right to ensure that installations of their
>>software are legitimate before providing support (product updates are
>>support), and that justifies the use of PA and WGA, however there are many
>>documented cases where these mechanisms have failed to identify
>>legitimately licensed installations, leaving legitimately licensed users
>>in a lurch.
>>
>>What, if anything, is MS doing to correct these flaws? So far all I've
>>seen MS do is make it more difficult, particularly with regard to OEM
>>installations and "unauthorized" product keys. It no longer only applies
>>to major OEMs, either. Every OEM pre-install I have seen lately that is
>>not pre-activated encounters this.
>
>
> And that is why we are trialling this now and if you have an issue we would
> encourage you to call in and provide us with the feedback and allow us to
> work though the issue with you too ensure these cases are minimised when we
> "go live".
> from http://www.microsoft.com/genuine/downloads/FAQ.aspx?displaylang=en
>
> Q.
> What should I do if I have a problem with the validation process?
>
>
> A.
> If you cannot resolve your problem using this FAQ, then please use the
> Contact Us link at the bottom of Microsoft Download Center pages to request
> additional assistance.
>

Do your own beta testing and quit springing it on paying customers.

>
>
>
>>And while we're at it, please print the keys on the COA in a font large
>>enough to read without a magnifying glass and quit using character strings
>>like "8B3B8".
>
>
> The font used should allow you to differentiate those particular characters.

It doesn't. Period. Poeple have been complaining about this for years!

> However please provide this feedback via
> http://support.microsoft.com/common/survey.aspx?scid=sw;en;1208&showpage=1&ws=search
>

YOU report it. What is your purpose here anyway, to merely divert issues
by spouting off MS's party line or to try and actually IMPROVE things
and actually help SOLVE problems like (most of) the rest of us do?

I'm not your beta tester and I have no responsibility to report anything
to MS. Why should *I* or anyone else have to bother? Again, what,
exactly is your role here? This is a peer support group. I challenge you
to be a peer.

I mean no disrespect to you Mike, but as an MS employee maybe *you*
should take some responsibility in these issues and instead of saying
"go to this url and do blahX3", say "I am forwarding your concerns to
the appropriate people" and follow up. I.E. actually *DO* something
about it!

You still didn't answer my question, in fact you evaded it, which again was:
"What, if anything, is MS doing to correct these flaws?"

Making *us* test it for you is not an acceptable answer or situation.

Steve

>
>>Steve
>>
>
>

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:46 PM
Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in
> message news:eqleDwjYFHA.2756@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
>>> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in
>>> message news:uxRRBphYFHA.2684@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>>>
>>>> "Only those not using genuine licensed product will have an issue."
>>>>
>>>> You have yet to explain how validation achieves your companies
>>>> cliam of faster access to downloads, when that is not logically or
>>>> visibly the reality of the situation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you are WGA covered through the use of the control etc then you
>>> will not have to potentially go through a manual process such as
>>> entering your PID/COA to gain access to the downloads - much as you
>>> can do today if you are not using IE or have an issue under WGA.
>>
>> The OS must be check each time to see if it is validated or not, and
>> that process is noticable, even on broadband.
>>
>
> Kurt - did you read what I said, If you take 2 machines one with the
> plug-in and IE and one without, and they both want to download WGA
> protected content. The one with the plug-in using IE will get to
> commence the download without going through the longer process to
> validate the genuine nature fo the OS that the other one will. That
> is how you get access to downloads faster. It is not and has never
> been about the actual on wire download speed.

And I'm not talking about download speed. I'm talking about faster
access to downloads, and there is NO WAY IN THE WORLD that WGA enables
faster access to downloads than if WGA never existed.

I had faster access to download before WGA. So the false claim of
faster access to downloads is just marketing BS that relies on us to
forget that it was much easier and faster to get to download Before WGA.

>
>> Yet your company has the audacity to LIE that WGA will give people
>> faster access to downloads, and that is NOT the case!
>
> See my answer above - it is NOT about download speed but about
> simplicity of access to get to the point where you commence
> downloading.

What part of "faster access to downloads" makes you think that I'm
talking about download speed?

Thanks for demonstrating how disengenuous you have to be to argue that
WGA is better for the END USER.

>
>> You accuse me of FUD, but your company is clearly guilty of LYING!
>> There is NO LOGICAL way to get faster access to downloads by adding
>> WGA checks between each and every download.
>>
>
> See above

ROFL! "faster access to downloads" Total BS!

>
>>
>>>> You claim that no one will be confused by it, but that is patently
>>>> absurd! People can't get the difference between Registration and
>>>> Activation straight, and are constantly confusing the two here, and
>>>> most people have Activation totally hidden from them by their OEMs,
>>>> but with Validation it won't be hidden.
>>>>
>>>
>>> One click - one time. As I have already said. This is hardly
>>> confusing. The user does not have to type anything etc (unlike
>>> registration etc)
>>
>> And then it has to recheck, each time, otherwise you wouldn't know
>> who to let have the download or not.
>>
>
> And this can be transparent to the end user.

NO ITS NOT! I can see the difference with broadband. When you click
the link to get the download, you first go to a temp page, then are
redirected to the download page.

It is totally noticable on broadband, on dialup it will be a pain in the
ass.

> And those that cannot
> be WGA validated then they have to go through the longer process. You
> can see this process today if you go to download some WGA content
> without IE or using the plug-in.

I can see the delay it take to check an OS that has been validated and
using IE to access the downloads. It is NOT a transparent process!


>
>> Clearly you either don't understand the WGA process, or you are
>> deliberately being disengenuous.
>>
>
> No, it is use that has failed to look at the process.

I been looking at it. And I can visibly see the delay in getting access
to the download with a validated OS, using IE on broadband.

>
>> You only have to validate once, that part is correct, but each time
>> you request a download your download web site must check to see if
>> the OS has been validate or not, so it can tell whether to allow or
>> disallow the download requested. This checking the status of
>> validation is slow enough to see that it slow down the access to
>> downloads, not speed it up!
>
> But it is a lot faster then you having to manually enter the COA/ID
> etc to validate your OS to WGA.

It isn't faster than before WGA existed! And that's the point! WGA has
slowed down the download process as compare to before it existed, it is
a noticable slowdown to accessing downloads, and it is not totally
transparent.

>
>>>
>>>> In its voluntary state, people had had problems with it not
>>>> validating their legit OS installed by major OEMs, and with the
>>>> installation of the ActiveX component.
>>>>
>>>>> As regards your last comment about me, if you bothered to do any
>>>>> research you could have found my biog on any number of online
>>>>> sessions at Microsoft.com etc where you would see that I'm an
>>>>> Enterprise Strategy and Senior Consultant, in the Windows Platform
>>>>> Infrastructure Delivery Group.
>>>>
>>>> "Consultant" sounds like you're one of the MicroSerfs that aren't
>>>> considered a full-time employee.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Our agency or vendor staff have i- and v- e-mail addresses mine is a
>>> FTE address. Also you appear to be unaware of Microsoft Services
>>> which now contains Microsoft Consultancy Services (MCS) where the
>>> staff carry the consultant job group title.
>>> see
>>> http://www.microsoft.com/services/microsoftservices/cons.mspx
>>>
>>> We are much more then just a software company.
>>
>> Yeah, ya'll are the most hated corporation of any kind on the
>> planet. And it is a distinction that is well deserved!
>>
>
> Your opinion only.

Yeah, but I see you didn't try to name a company that you would consider
more hated than yours world-wide.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:46 PM
Ian Merrithew wrote:
> On Thu, 26 May 2005 23:12:04 +0100, Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
>
>> Kurt - did you read what I said, If you take 2 machines one with the
>> plug-in and IE and one without, and they both want to download WGA
>> protected content. The one with the plug-in using IE will get to
>> commence the download without going through the longer process to
>> validate the genuine nature fo the OS that the other one will. That
>> is how you get access to downloads faster.
>
> In other words, you took an existing method that worked just fine
> from an end-users' point of view (simple, unencumbered downloads),
> made it more complicated (with this "validation" crap), then tell all
> your users that by jumping through 'this' hoop (plug-in) to complete
> validation instead of 'that' hoop (type in string of gobbledegook)
> you make the experience 'faster'.
>
> What wonderfully deceptive, yet typically Microsoft, marketing. Both
> hoops are slower than the original method -- that's undeniable. So
> simply remove the original method from the picture and hope your users
> are as dumb as a bag of hammers so they forget it ever worked any
> other way.
>
> Thanks for reminding me, once again, why I switched to Linux on my
> home PC last year.

I couldn't have said it better myself, and I didn't. Thanks!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Alias
07-09-2005, 11:46 PM
"kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote
>
> Yeah, but I see you didn't try to name a company that you would consider
> more hated than yours world-wide.
>
> --
> Peace!
> Kurt

There's one. They have their main office at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20500 USA.

Alias

Alias
07-09-2005, 11:46 PM
"Steve N." <me@here.now> wrote in message
news:fwsle.932$MI4.2@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
>
>> "Steve N." <me@here.now> wrote in message
>> news:qglle.88$q4.65@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>>>Mike, of course MS has the right to ensure that installations of their
>>>software are legitimate before providing support (product updates are
>>>support), and that justifies the use of PA and WGA, however there are
>>>many documented cases where these mechanisms have failed to identify
>>>legitimately licensed installations, leaving legitimately licensed users
>>>in a lurch.
>>>
>>>What, if anything, is MS doing to correct these flaws? So far all I've
>>>seen MS do is make it more difficult, particularly with regard to OEM
>>>installations and "unauthorized" product keys. It no longer only applies
>>>to major OEMs, either. Every OEM pre-install I have seen lately that is
>>>not pre-activated encounters this.
>>
>>
>> And that is why we are trialling this now and if you have an issue we
>> would encourage you to call in and provide us with the feedback and allow
>> us to work though the issue with you too ensure these cases are minimised
>> when we "go live".
>> from http://www.microsoft.com/genuine/downloads/FAQ.aspx?displaylang=en
>>
>> Q.
>> What should I do if I have a problem with the validation process?
>>
>>
>> A.
>> If you cannot resolve your problem using this FAQ, then please use
>> the Contact Us link at the bottom of Microsoft Download Center pages to
>> request additional assistance.
>>
>
> Do your own beta testing and quit springing it on paying customers.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>And while we're at it, please print the keys on the COA in a font large
>>>enough to read without a magnifying glass and quit using character
>>>strings like "8B3B8".
>>
>>
>> The font used should allow you to differentiate those particular
>> characters.
>
> It doesn't. Period. Poeple have been complaining about this for years!
>
>> However please provide this feedback via
>> http://support.microsoft.com/common/survey.aspx?scid=sw;en;1208&showpage=1&ws=search
>>
>
> YOU report it. What is your purpose here anyway, to merely divert issues
> by spouting off MS's party line or to try and actually IMPROVE things and
> actually help SOLVE problems like (most of) the rest of us do?
>
> I'm not your beta tester and I have no responsibility to report anything
> to MS. Why should *I* or anyone else have to bother? Again, what, exactly
> is your role here? This is a peer support group. I challenge you to be a
> peer.
>
> I mean no disrespect to you Mike, but as an MS employee maybe *you* should
> take some responsibility in these issues and instead of saying "go to this
> url and do blahX3", say "I am forwarding your concerns to the appropriate
> people" and follow up. I.E. actually *DO* something about it!
>
> You still didn't answer my question, in fact you evaded it, which again
> was:
> "What, if anything, is MS doing to correct these flaws?"
>
> Making *us* test it for you is not an acceptable answer or situation.
>
> Steve

Monopolies, like the Kings and Queens of olde, think that their subjects
should not only jump hoops but pay to do it with a smile. If another OS that
could compete with MS were to ever appear on the scene, MS would be begging
us to download their royal permissions to licence and use their software.
Methinks King Billy has let his power, riches and monopoly go to his head
and, at the end of the day, this kind of bad PR will be the fall of his
Empire.

WHY SHOULD A PAYING CUSTOMER HAVE TO PROVE HE HAS PAID FOR SOMETHING THREE
TIMES TO THE PERSON HE OR SHE BOUGHT IT FROM ???

First I prove it buy pulling out my hard earned cash and am told after I buy
it that I have bought permission to use it, not own the software even though
every store and every web site calls the OS "software". When I am informed
of this in the install process, it is too late to get a refund. Catch 22,
anyone?

Second, I have to activate and worry that I will be refused activation when
I want to use my computer, not explain to some MS operator that I really did
pay for it and I really am not a thief.

Third, I have to validate and worry that I will be refused validation when I
want to use my computer, not explain to some MS operator that I really did
pay for it and I really am not a thief.

That's degrading, insulting and entirely uncalled for. If MS can't catch
pirates because pirates are smarter than they are, that isn't the paying
customer's problem!

Alias

Alias
07-09-2005, 11:46 PM
"Ian Merrithew" <optimus2861@nooospammm.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.05.26.22.33.00.28740@nooospammm.com...
> On Thu, 26 May 2005 23:12:04 +0100, Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
>
>> Kurt - did you read what I said, If you take 2 machines one with the
>> plug-in and IE and one without, and they both want to download WGA
>> protected
>> content. The one with the plug-in using IE will get to commence the
>> download without going through the longer process to validate the genuine
>> nature fo the OS that the other one will. That is how you get access to
>> downloads faster.
>
> In other words, you took an existing method that worked just fine from an
> end-users' point of view (simple, unencumbered downloads), made it more
> complicated (with this "validation" crap), then tell all your users that
> by jumping through 'this' hoop (plug-in) to complete validation instead of
> 'that' hoop (type in string of gobbledegook) you make the experience
> 'faster'.
>
> What wonderfully deceptive, yet typically Microsoft, marketing. Both
> hoops are slower than the original method -- that's undeniable. So simply
> remove the original method from the picture and hope your users
> are as dumb as a bag of hammers so they forget it ever worked any other
> way.
>
> Thanks for reminding me, once again, why I switched to Linux on my
> home PC last year.
>
> --
> Ian Merrithew - ADM Systems Engineering

Very well said. My next computer will be a Mini Mac. This is the last
Windows for me. I would have stayed but this assuming you're a thief until
you prove otherwise really gets under my skin.

Alias

NoStop
07-09-2005, 11:46 PM
kurttrail wrote:

> LOL! Are you saying that ya'll are gonna drop the validation rechecks?
> How are you gonna know if someone is validated if ya'll don't recheck
> the validation on every download request?
>
Why don't you just quit snivelling? You sound like a 5 year old complaining
because his mommy is forcing some rules in his life. You choose to use a
closed proprietary OS, you should be prepared to live with the results and
further consequences that MickeyMouse is probably now planning for your
future.

BTW, there are no such words in the English language like "ya'll" or
"gonna". Trying to sound like George Bush?


--
Re: Micro$oft OneCare:
"When a company is run like the mafia why would you not expect them to
progress to charging protection money." NF

NoStop
07-09-2005, 11:46 PM
kurttrail wrote:

> Ian Merrithew wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 May 2005 23:12:04 +0100, Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
>>
>>> Kurt - did you read what I said, If you take 2 machines one with the
>>> plug-in and IE and one without, and they both want to download WGA
>>> protected content. The one with the plug-in using IE will get to
>>> commence the download without going through the longer process to
>>> validate the genuine nature fo the OS that the other one will. That
>>> is how you get access to downloads faster.
>>
>> In other words, you took an existing method that worked just fine
>> from an end-users' point of view (simple, unencumbered downloads),
>> made it more complicated (with this "validation" crap), then tell all
>> your users that by jumping through 'this' hoop (plug-in) to complete
>> validation instead of 'that' hoop (type in string of gobbledegook)
>> you make the experience 'faster'.
>>
>> What wonderfully deceptive, yet typically Microsoft, marketing. Both
>> hoops are slower than the original method -- that's undeniable. So
>> simply remove the original method from the picture and hope your users
>> are as dumb as a bag of hammers so they forget it ever worked any
>> other way.
>>
>> Thanks for reminding me, once again, why I switched to Linux on my
>> home PC last year.
>
> I couldn't have said it better myself, and I didn't. Thanks!
>

You hypocrite! Of course, had you said that, you'd have to run around this
newsgroup forever calling yourself a Linux troll. MS might be dishonest,
but not anymore than you are Kurt. Only real difference I see is that MS's
actions impact millions of users. Your impact is negligible, especially
after people see through your b.s. game playing and realize it is best to
just ignore your ramblings.


--
Re: Micro$oft OneCare:
"When a company is run like the mafia why would you not expect them to
progress to charging protection money." NF

Tom Pepper Willett
07-09-2005, 11:46 PM
Some people who live in the south don't identify with Bush.
Ya'll was around long before he came around, and is acceptable.

Now, would you like to talk about ebonics?

http://www.yourdictionary.com/library/drlang006.html


"NoStop" <nostop@stopspam.com> wrote in message
news:X3tle.1490216$6l.637075@pd7tw2no...
| kurttrail wrote:
|
| > LOL! Are you saying that ya'll are gonna drop the validation rechecks?
| > How are you gonna know if someone is validated if ya'll don't recheck
| > the validation on every download request?
| >
| Why don't you just quit snivelling? You sound like a 5 year old
complaining
| because his mommy is forcing some rules in his life. You choose to use a
| closed proprietary OS, you should be prepared to live with the results and
| further consequences that MickeyMouse is probably now planning for your
| future.
|
| BTW, there are no such words in the English language like "ya'll" or
| "gonna". Trying to sound like George Bush?
|
|
| --
| Re: Micro$oft OneCare:
| "When a company is run like the mafia why would you not expect them to
| progress to charging protection money." NF
|

Alias
07-09-2005, 11:46 PM
"NoStop" <nostop@stopspam.com> wrote

> kurttrail wrote:
>
>> LOL! Are you saying that ya'll are gonna drop the validation rechecks?
>> How are you gonna know if someone is validated if ya'll don't recheck
>> the validation on every download request?
>>
> Why don't you just quit snivelling? You sound like a 5 year old
> complaining
> because his mommy is forcing some rules in his life. You choose to use a
> closed proprietary OS, you should be prepared to live with the results and
> further consequences that MickeyMouse is probably now planning for your
> future.
>
> BTW, there are no such words in the English language like "ya'll" or
> "gonna". Trying to sound like George Bush?

No one who grew up in New Jersey could sound like George Bush.

Heh.

Alias

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:46 PM
NoStop wrote:
> kurttrail wrote:
>
>> LOL! Are you saying that ya'll are gonna drop the validation
>> rechecks? How are you gonna know if someone is validated if ya'll
>> don't recheck the validation on every download request?
>>
> Why don't you just quit snivelling?

Laughing and asking a couple of questions is "snivelling" (sic)?

> You sound like a 5 year old
> complaining because his mommy is forcing some rules in his life.

Cool!

> You
> choose to use a closed proprietary OS, you should be prepared to live
> with the results and further consequences that MickeyMouse is
> probably now planning for your future.

So is MS a predatory monopoly or not? Do you believe that a corporation
has rights in an individuals home just because that individual bought a
product from them?

>
> BTW, there are no such words in the English language like "ya'll" or
> "gonna". Trying to sound like George Bush?

http://microscum.com/misc/BS/msnpenguins.gif

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:46 PM
NoStop wrote:
> kurttrail wrote:
>
>> Ian Merrithew wrote:
>>> On Thu, 26 May 2005 23:12:04 +0100, Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kurt - did you read what I said, If you take 2 machines one with
>>>> the plug-in and IE and one without, and they both want to download
>>>> WGA protected content. The one with the plug-in using IE will get
>>>> to commence the download without going through the longer process
>>>> to validate the genuine nature fo the OS that the other one will.
>>>> That is how you get access to downloads faster.
>>>
>>> In other words, you took an existing method that worked just fine
>>> from an end-users' point of view (simple, unencumbered downloads),
>>> made it more complicated (with this "validation" crap), then tell
>>> all your users that by jumping through 'this' hoop (plug-in) to
>>> complete validation instead of 'that' hoop (type in string of
>>> gobbledegook) you make the experience 'faster'.
>>>
>>> What wonderfully deceptive, yet typically Microsoft, marketing.
>>> Both hoops are slower than the original method -- that's
>>> undeniable. So simply remove the original method from the picture
>>> and hope your users are as dumb as a bag of hammers so they forget
>>> it ever worked any other way.
>>>
>>> Thanks for reminding me, once again, why I switched to Linux on my
>>> home PC last year.
>>
>> I couldn't have said it better myself, and I didn't. Thanks!
>>
>
> You hypocrite! Of course, had you said that, you'd have to run around
> this newsgroup forever calling yourself a Linux troll.

I was talking about Ian's explanation about how MS's claim of faster
access to downloads with WGA is a totally contrived and fallacious
claim.

> MS might be
> dishonest, but not anymore than you are Kurt.

LOL! Really?

> Only real difference I
> see is that MS's actions impact millions of users. Your impact is
> negligible, especially after people see through your b.s. game
> playing and realize it is best to just ignore your ramblings.

ROFL! So why aren't you ignoring my "ramblings?" Obviously, your own
actions make a lie of your words. If I were so easily dismissed, then
you would pay me no mind.

You come to this group, offer no help to the people here, and all you do
is attack MS, except to attack me, one of the most vocal adversaries of
MS in this group.

"The enemy of my enemy is my enemy." - NoBrains 2005

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:46 PM
Alias wrote:
> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote
>>
>> Yeah, but I see you didn't try to name a company that you would
>> consider more hated than yours world-wide.
>>
>> --
>> Peace!
>> Kurt
>
> There's one. They have their main office at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
> NW, Washington, DC 20500 USA.

LOL! Isn't that the address for the Oil Lobby?

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Mike Brannigan [MSFT]
07-09-2005, 11:46 PM
"Steve N." <me@here.now> wrote in message
news:fwsle.932$MI4.2@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
>
>> "Steve N." <me@here.now> wrote in message
>> news:qglle.88$q4.65@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>>>Mike, of course MS has the right to ensure that installations of their
>>>software are legitimate before providing support (product updates are
>>>support), and that justifies the use of PA and WGA, however there are
>>>many documented cases where these mechanisms have failed to identify
>>>legitimately licensed installations, leaving legitimately licensed users
>>>in a lurch.
>>>
>>>What, if anything, is MS doing to correct these flaws? So far all I've
>>>seen MS do is make it more difficult, particularly with regard to OEM
>>>installations and "unauthorized" product keys. It no longer only applies
>>>to major OEMs, either. Every OEM pre-install I have seen lately that is
>>>not pre-activated encounters this.
>>
>>
>> And that is why we are trialling this now and if you have an issue we
>> would encourage you to call in and provide us with the feedback and allow
>> us to work though the issue with you too ensure these cases are minimised
>> when we "go live".
>> from http://www.microsoft.com/genuine/downloads/FAQ.aspx?displaylang=en
>>
>> Q.
>> What should I do if I have a problem with the validation process?
>>
>>
>> A.
>> If you cannot resolve your problem using this FAQ, then please use
>> the Contact Us link at the bottom of Microsoft Download Center pages to
>> request additional assistance.
>>
>
> Do your own beta testing and quit springing it on paying customers.
>

You do not have to use the WGA if you do not wish to at this time. But will
millions and millions of systems out there, once we have done the necessary
beta testing internally, we have to move to a wider pilot test to try and
iron out those last few issues. Hence the reason it is out there now to be
used if you wish. If you do use it and have an issue then again you can
either provide us some feedback and help the system improve or you can
choose to do nothing. As regards springing this on paying customers - we
make all these downloads available to you for free - we do not have to. But
we are trying to provide you the paying customer with added value at no cost
to you and at the same time ensure that only you paying customers can access
this added value.

>>
>>
>>
>>>And while we're at it, please print the keys on the COA in a font large
>>>enough to read without a magnifying glass and quit using character
>>>strings like "8B3B8".
>>
>>
>> The font used should allow you to differentiate those particular
>> characters.
>
> It doesn't. Period. Poeple have been complaining about this for years!
>
>> However please provide this feedback via
>> http://support.microsoft.com/common/survey.aspx?scid=sw;en;1208&showpage=1&ws=search
>>
>
> YOU report it. What is your purpose here anyway, to merely divert issues
> by spouting off MS's party line or to try and actually IMPROVE things and
> actually help SOLVE problems like (most of) the rest of us do?
>

My role here is entirely voluntary - this is a peer to peer support
newsgroup. If you want to provide feedback then do so via the proper
channels where it will reach the appropriate people, where as I could spend
my spare time trying to find the right person for this or that piece of
feedback provided here, instead of letting it be routed automatically by the
site.
My track record of helping others and problem solving is beyond question and
all of these thousands of posts per year being done in my own time and not
as part of my job.

> I'm not your beta tester and I have no responsibility to report anything
> to MS. Why should *I* or anyone else have to bother? Again, what, exactly
> is your role here? This is a peer support group. I challenge you to be a
> peer.
>

Feel free then to not contribute at all to WGA - but then do not complain if
you are hit by an issue that your could have helped fix by providing a few
minutes of feedback. By all means continue to not use WGA but it is coming
and if as a technically competent user you could add something to the
development then maybe you may wish to reconsider your role in this
community.

> I mean no disrespect to you Mike, but as an MS employee maybe *you* should
> take some responsibility in these issues and instead of saying "go to this
> url and do blahX3", say "I am forwarding your concerns to the appropriate
> people" and follow up. I.E. actually *DO* something about it!
>

As I have explained - the external systems will get your feedback to the
right group much faster then I could.

> You still didn't answer my question, in fact you evaded it, which again
> was:
> "What, if anything, is MS doing to correct these flaws?"
>

The answer is "working on then internally and with those who have
experienced an issue and engaged with us to help resolve it."

> Making *us* test it for you is not an acceptable answer or situation.
>

I have already addressed this above.

--

Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups

"Steve N." <me@here.now> wrote in message
news:fwsle.932$MI4.2@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
>
>> "Steve N." <me@here.now> wrote in message
>> news:qglle.88$q4.65@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>>>Mike, of course MS has the right to ensure that installations of their
>>>software are legitimate before providing support (product updates are
>>>support), and that justifies the use of PA and WGA, however there are
>>>many documented cases where these mechanisms have failed to identify
>>>legitimately licensed installations, leaving legitimately licensed users
>>>in a lurch.
>>>
>>>What, if anything, is MS doing to correct these flaws? So far all I've
>>>seen MS do is make it more difficult, particularly with regard to OEM
>>>installations and "unauthorized" product keys. It no longer only applies
>>>to major OEMs, either. Every OEM pre-install I have seen lately that is
>>>not pre-activated encounters this.
>>
>>
>> And that is why we are trialling this now and if you have an issue we
>> would encourage you to call in and provide us with the feedback and allow
>> us to work though the issue with you too ensure these cases are minimised
>> when we "go live".
>> from http://www.microsoft.com/genuine/downloads/FAQ.aspx?displaylang=en
>>
>> Q.
>> What should I do if I have a problem with the validation process?
>>
>>
>> A.
>> If you cannot resolve your problem using this FAQ, then please use
>> the Contact Us link at the bottom of Microsoft Download Center pages to
>> request additional assistance.
>>
>
> Do your own beta testing and quit springing it on paying customers.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>And while we're at it, please print the keys on the COA in a font large
>>>enough to read without a magnifying glass and quit using character
>>>strings like "8B3B8".
>>
>>
>> The font used should allow you to differentiate those particular
>> characters.
>
> It doesn't. Period. Poeple have been complaining about this for years!
>
>> However please provide this feedback via
>> http://support.microsoft.com/common/survey.aspx?scid=sw;en;1208&showpage=1&ws=search
>>
>
> YOU report it. What is your purpose here anyway, to merely divert issues
> by spouting off MS's party line or to try and actually IMPROVE things and
> actually help SOLVE problems like (most of) the rest of us do?
>
> I'm not your beta tester and I have no responsibility to report anything
> to MS. Why should *I* or anyone else have to bother? Again, what, exactly
> is your role here? This is a peer support group. I challenge you to be a
> peer.
>
> I mean no disrespect to you Mike, but as an MS employee maybe *you* should
> take some responsibility in these issues and instead of saying "go to this
> url and do blahX3", say "I am forwarding your concerns to the appropriate
> people" and follow up. I.E. actually *DO* something about it!
>
> You still didn't answer my question, in fact you evaded it, which again
> was:
> "What, if anything, is MS doing to correct these flaws?"
>
> Making *us* test it for you is not an acceptable answer or situation.
>
> Steve
>
>>
>>>Steve
>>>
>>
>>
>

Mike Brannigan [MSFT]
07-09-2005, 11:46 PM
"Alias" <aka@[notme]maskedandanonymous.org> wrote in message
news:%23FcXPrkYFHA.2380@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>
>
> Third, I have to validate and worry that I will be refused validation when
> I want to use my computer, not explain to some MS operator that I really
> did pay for it and I really am not a thief.
>

You do not "have" to validate - since you do not "have" to download any of
the free content we provide you as a value add to the opertaing system.
Your choice to not download any of this content does not impact your ability
to use your computer.

--

Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups

"Alias" <aka@[notme]maskedandanonymous.org> wrote in message
news:%23FcXPrkYFHA.2380@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>
> "Steve N." <me@here.now> wrote in message
> news:fwsle.932$MI4.2@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
>>
>>> "Steve N." <me@here.now> wrote in message
>>> news:qglle.88$q4.65@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>>>Mike, of course MS has the right to ensure that installations of their
>>>>software are legitimate before providing support (product updates are
>>>>support), and that justifies the use of PA and WGA, however there are
>>>>many documented cases where these mechanisms have failed to identify
>>>>legitimately licensed installations, leaving legitimately licensed users
>>>>in a lurch.
>>>>
>>>>What, if anything, is MS doing to correct these flaws? So far all I've
>>>>seen MS do is make it more difficult, particularly with regard to OEM
>>>>installations and "unauthorized" product keys. It no longer only applies
>>>>to major OEMs, either. Every OEM pre-install I have seen lately that is
>>>>not pre-activated encounters this.
>>>
>>>
>>> And that is why we are trialling this now and if you have an issue we
>>> would encourage you to call in and provide us with the feedback and
>>> allow us to work though the issue with you too ensure these cases are
>>> minimised when we "go live".
>>> from http://www.microsoft.com/genuine/downloads/FAQ.aspx?displaylang=en
>>>
>>> Q.
>>> What should I do if I have a problem with the validation process?
>>>
>>>
>>> A.
>>> If you cannot resolve your problem using this FAQ, then please use
>>> the Contact Us link at the bottom of Microsoft Download Center pages to
>>> request additional assistance.
>>>
>>
>> Do your own beta testing and quit springing it on paying customers.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>And while we're at it, please print the keys on the COA in a font large
>>>>enough to read without a magnifying glass and quit using character
>>>>strings like "8B3B8".
>>>
>>>
>>> The font used should allow you to differentiate those particular
>>> characters.
>>
>> It doesn't. Period. Poeple have been complaining about this for years!
>>
>>> However please provide this feedback via
>>> http://support.microsoft.com/common/survey.aspx?scid=sw;en;1208&showpage=1&ws=search
>>>
>>
>> YOU report it. What is your purpose here anyway, to merely divert issues
>> by spouting off MS's party line or to try and actually IMPROVE things and
>> actually help SOLVE problems like (most of) the rest of us do?
>>
>> I'm not your beta tester and I have no responsibility to report anything
>> to MS. Why should *I* or anyone else have to bother? Again, what, exactly
>> is your role here? This is a peer support group. I challenge you to be a
>> peer.
>>
>> I mean no disrespect to you Mike, but as an MS employee maybe *you*
>> should take some responsibility in these issues and instead of saying "go
>> to this url and do blahX3", say "I am forwarding your concerns to the
>> appropriate people" and follow up. I.E. actually *DO* something about it!
>>
>> You still didn't answer my question, in fact you evaded it, which again
>> was:
>> "What, if anything, is MS doing to correct these flaws?"
>>
>> Making *us* test it for you is not an acceptable answer or situation.
>>
>> Steve
>
> Monopolies, like the Kings and Queens of olde, think that their subjects
> should not only jump hoops but pay to do it with a smile. If another OS
> that could compete with MS were to ever appear on the scene, MS would be
> begging us to download their royal permissions to licence and use their
> software. Methinks King Billy has let his power, riches and monopoly go to
> his head and, at the end of the day, this kind of bad PR will be the fall
> of his Empire.
>
> WHY SHOULD A PAYING CUSTOMER HAVE TO PROVE HE HAS PAID FOR SOMETHING THREE
> TIMES TO THE PERSON HE OR SHE BOUGHT IT FROM ???
>
> First I prove it buy pulling out my hard earned cash and am told after I
> buy it that I have bought permission to use it, not own the software even
> though every store and every web site calls the OS "software". When I am
> informed of this in the install process, it is too late to get a refund.
> Catch 22, anyone?
>
> Second, I have to activate and worry that I will be refused activation
> when I want to use my computer, not explain to some MS operator that I
> really did pay for it and I really am not a thief.
>
> Third, I have to validate and worry that I will be refused validation when
> I want to use my computer, not explain to some MS operator that I really
> did pay for it and I really am not a thief.
>
> That's degrading, insulting and entirely uncalled for. If MS can't catch
> pirates because pirates are smarter than they are, that isn't the paying
> customer's problem!
>
> Alias
>

Alias
07-09-2005, 11:46 PM
"Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" <mikebran@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:e30DEOpYFHA.2420@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> "Alias" <aka@[notme]maskedandanonymous.org> wrote in message
> news:%23FcXPrkYFHA.2380@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>
>>
>> Third, I have to validate and worry that I will be refused validation
>> when I want to use my computer, not explain to some MS operator that I
>> really did pay for it and I really am not a thief.
>>
>
> You do not "have" to validate - since you do not "have" to download any of
> the free content we provide you as a value add to the opertaing system.
> Your choice to not download any of this content does not impact your
> ability to use your computer.
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike

Oh, WGA won't be required for security and program updates? Will WGA be
required for MSN Messenger? IE 7? What *will* WGA be required for, do you
know? "Value add" doesn't tell me much.

Alias

> --
> Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]
>
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights
>
> Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
> newsgroups
>
> "Alias" <aka@[notme]maskedandanonymous.org> wrote in message
> news:%23FcXPrkYFHA.2380@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>
>> "Steve N." <me@here.now> wrote in message
>> news:fwsle.932$MI4.2@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>> Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Steve N." <me@here.now> wrote in message
>>>> news:qglle.88$q4.65@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>>
>>>>>Mike, of course MS has the right to ensure that installations of their
>>>>>software are legitimate before providing support (product updates are
>>>>>support), and that justifies the use of PA and WGA, however there are
>>>>>many documented cases where these mechanisms have failed to identify
>>>>>legitimately licensed installations, leaving legitimately licensed
>>>>>users in a lurch.
>>>>>
>>>>>What, if anything, is MS doing to correct these flaws? So far all I've
>>>>>seen MS do is make it more difficult, particularly with regard to OEM
>>>>>installations and "unauthorized" product keys. It no longer only
>>>>>applies to major OEMs, either. Every OEM pre-install I have seen lately
>>>>>that is not pre-activated encounters this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And that is why we are trialling this now and if you have an issue we
>>>> would encourage you to call in and provide us with the feedback and
>>>> allow us to work though the issue with you too ensure these cases are
>>>> minimised when we "go live".
>>>> from http://www.microsoft.com/genuine/downloads/FAQ.aspx?displaylang=en
>>>>
>>>> Q.
>>>> What should I do if I have a problem with the validation process?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A.
>>>> If you cannot resolve your problem using this FAQ, then please use
>>>> the Contact Us link at the bottom of Microsoft Download Center pages to
>>>> request additional assistance.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do your own beta testing and quit springing it on paying customers.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>And while we're at it, please print the keys on the COA in a font large
>>>>>enough to read without a magnifying glass and quit using character
>>>>>strings like "8B3B8".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The font used should allow you to differentiate those particular
>>>> characters.
>>>
>>> It doesn't. Period. Poeple have been complaining about this for years!
>>>
>>>> However please provide this feedback via
>>>> http://support.microsoft.com/common/survey.aspx?scid=sw;en;1208&showpage=1&ws=search
>>>>
>>>
>>> YOU report it. What is your purpose here anyway, to merely divert issues
>>> by spouting off MS's party line or to try and actually IMPROVE things
>>> and actually help SOLVE problems like (most of) the rest of us do?
>>>
>>> I'm not your beta tester and I have no responsibility to report anything
>>> to MS. Why should *I* or anyone else have to bother? Again, what,
>>> exactly is your role here? This is a peer support group. I challenge you
>>> to be a peer.
>>>
>>> I mean no disrespect to you Mike, but as an MS employee maybe *you*
>>> should take some responsibility in these issues and instead of saying
>>> "go to this url and do blahX3", say "I am forwarding your concerns to
>>> the appropriate people" and follow up. I.E. actually *DO* something
>>> about it!
>>>
>>> You still didn't answer my question, in fact you evaded it, which again
>>> was:
>>> "What, if anything, is MS doing to correct these flaws?"
>>>
>>> Making *us* test it for you is not an acceptable answer or situation.
>>>
>>> Steve
>>
>> Monopolies, like the Kings and Queens of olde, think that their subjects
>> should not only jump hoops but pay to do it with a smile. If another OS
>> that could compete with MS were to ever appear on the scene, MS would be
>> begging us to download their royal permissions to licence and use their
>> software. Methinks King Billy has let his power, riches and monopoly go
>> to his head and, at the end of the day, this kind of bad PR will be the
>> fall of his Empire.
>>
>> WHY SHOULD A PAYING CUSTOMER HAVE TO PROVE HE HAS PAID FOR SOMETHING
>> THREE TIMES TO THE PERSON HE OR SHE BOUGHT IT FROM ???
>>
>> First I prove it buy pulling out my hard earned cash and am told after I
>> buy it that I have bought permission to use it, not own the software even
>> though every store and every web site calls the OS "software". When I am
>> informed of this in the install process, it is too late to get a refund.
>> Catch 22, anyone?
>>
>> Second, I have to activate and worry that I will be refused activation
>> when I want to use my computer, not explain to some MS operator that I
>> really did pay for it and I really am not a thief.
>>
>> Third, I have to validate and worry that I will be refused validation
>> when I want to use my computer, not explain to some MS operator that I
>> really did pay for it and I really am not a thief.
>>
>> That's degrading, insulting and entirely uncalled for. If MS can't catch
>> pirates because pirates are smarter than they are, that isn't the paying
>> customer's problem!
>>
>> Alias
>>
>
>

David Candy
07-09-2005, 11:46 PM
You are one of the most pointless posters I've met. Your role seems to be to
engage in pointless arguments of which you know you can't win cos the ones
you argue with have made up their minds. Why do you do it?

I also note you are only interested in addressing pretty much non
substantive issues. You remind me of a kid in a playground at an infants
school. While this isn't with you, I canvassed with Jupiter the economic,
political, and legal issues relating to patents/software from a economic
rationalist perspective. Basically patents/copyright is a theft but it's
considered worth the trade off to foster innovation. This makes name calling
and moral judgements about piracy hypocritical. Anything that goes beyond
piracy vs no piracy is too hard for zealots like you to address.

Now you know I don't condone piracy and neither do I object to WPA. But you
just lie and that really annoys me. As regards to WGA I just note MS's
complete technical incompentance (I'll install my spell checker soon after
you deleted all my files last week) and I know it won't work well. I
couldn't activate all last week. I couldn't send mail or news posts (yet
again you get me to type out crap for no reason like how many posts I junk
because when I look up it's all gibberish due to the keyboard you defrauded
me on) or view the SMH site.

So activation did not work last week. Why? Because I installed my modem
driver to go online. Because I installed it (and hardware detection won't
detect it till I install the drivers) I cancelled the HW detect on the next
boot. My 33.3 modem was $500 new - I ain't junking it and use it in place of
my 56K modem which I have never used.

I tried to download Fiddler (an HTTP debugger) to find out why HTTP wasn't
working for 1/2 the sites in the world (the other 1/2 worked fine) but had
to install DotNet 1.1 (I only have ver 2 install files). But I had to try to
open the .Net download page, go View Source, cut and copy it to a new local
file, Open the local file of the web page to see the link. I managed to get
1 meg of the 22 meg download.

Now to address your last specific lie. I just tried to get PS3. WGA just
didn't work for me. Note this is nothing to do with validation but your web
server. The active X control arrived but the web page became invisible after
a couple of seconds of visible. It took 9 minutes to fail. I wanted to read
PS3 EULA.

Now note for me all MS software is free. I only have Dos 3.3 OEM and Win 3.1
Retail that I paid you money for (I just realised thart windows 1 and 2 and
Dos 3.3 got deleted last week - they weren't backed up). This assumes that I
paid for your software rather than you gifting it to me.

The lie I'm refering to is "free software". It's not. It is paid for as part
of the OS. In fact it's called

SUPPLEMENTAL END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT





"Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" <mikebran@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:unU8mLpYFHA.2420@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> "Steve N." <me@here.now> wrote in message
> news:fwsle.932$MI4.2@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
> >
> >> "Steve N." <me@here.now> wrote in message
> >> news:qglle.88$q4.65@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >>
> >>>Mike, of course MS has the right to ensure that installations of their
> >>>software are legitimate before providing support (product updates are
> >>>support), and that justifies the use of PA and WGA, however there are
> >>>many documented cases where these mechanisms have failed to identify
> >>>legitimately licensed installations, leaving legitimately licensed
users
> >>>in a lurch.
> >>>
> >>>What, if anything, is MS doing to correct these flaws? So far all I've
> >>>seen MS do is make it more difficult, particularly with regard to OEM
> >>>installations and "unauthorized" product keys. It no longer only
applies
> >>>to major OEMs, either. Every OEM pre-install I have seen lately that is
> >>>not pre-activated encounters this.
> >>
> >>
> >> And that is why we are trialling this now and if you have an issue we

> >> would encourage you to call in and provide us with the feedback and
allow
> >> us to work though the issue with you too ensure these cases are
minimised
> >> when we "go live".
> >> from http://www.microsoft.com/genuine/downloads/FAQ.aspx?displaylang=en
> >>
> >> Q.
> >> What should I do if I have a problem with the validation process?
> >>
> >>
> >> A.
> >> If you cannot resolve your problem using this FAQ, then please use
> >> the Contact Us link at the bottom of Microsoft Download Center pages to
> >> request additional assistance.
> >>
> >
> > Do your own beta testing and quit springing it on paying customers.
> >
>
> You do not have to use the WGA if you do not wish to at this time. But
will
> millions and millions of systems out there, once we have done the
necessary
> beta testing internally, we have to move to a wider pilot test to try and
> iron out those last few issues. Hence the reason it is out there now to
be
> used if you wish. If you do use it and have an issue then again you can
> either provide us some feedback and help the system improve or you can
> choose to do nothing. As regards springing this on paying customers - we
> make all these downloads available to you for free - we do not have to.
But
> we are trying to provide you the paying customer with added value at no
cost
> to you and at the same time ensure that only you paying customers can
access
> this added value.
>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>And while we're at it, please print the keys on the COA in a font large
> >>>enough to read without a magnifying glass and quit using character
> >>>strings like "8B3B8".
> >>
> >>
> >> The font used should allow you to differentiate those particular
> >> characters.
> >
> > It doesn't. Period. Poeple have been complaining about this for years!
> >
> >> However please provide this feedback via
> >>
http://support.microsoft.com/common/survey.aspx?scid=sw;en;1208&showpage=1&w
s=search
> >>
> >
> > YOU report it. What is your purpose here anyway, to merely divert issues
> > by spouting off MS's party line or to try and actually IMPROVE things
and
> > actually help SOLVE problems like (most of) the rest of us do?
> >
>
> My role here is entirely voluntary - this is a peer to peer support
> newsgroup. If you want to provide feedback then do so via the proper
> channels where it will reach the appropriate people, where as I could
spend
> my spare time trying to find the right person for this or that piece of
> feedback provided here, instead of letting it be routed automatically by
the
> site.
> My track record of helping others and problem solving is beyond question
and
> all of these thousands of posts per year being done in my own time and not
> as part of my job.
>
> > I'm not your beta tester and I have no responsibility to report anything
> > to MS. Why should *I* or anyone else have to bother? Again, what,
exactly
> > is your role here? This is a peer support group. I challenge you to be a
> > peer.
> >
>
> Feel free then to not contribute at all to WGA - but then do not complain
if
> you are hit by an issue that your could have helped fix by providing a few
> minutes of feedback. By all means continue to not use WGA but it is
coming
> and if as a technically competent user you could add something to the
> development then maybe you may wish to reconsider your role in this
> community.
>
> > I mean no disrespect to you Mike, but as an MS employee maybe *you*
should
> > take some responsibility in these issues and instead of saying "go to
this
> > url and do blahX3", say "I am forwarding your concerns to the
appropriate
> > people" and follow up. I.E. actually *DO* something about it!
> >
>
> As I have explained - the external systems will get your feedback to the
> right group much faster then I could.
>
> > You still didn't answer my question, in fact you evaded it, which again
> > was:
> > "What, if anything, is MS doing to correct these flaws?"
> >
>
> The answer is "working on then internally and with those who have
> experienced an issue and engaged with us to help resolve it."
>
> > Making *us* test it for you is not an acceptable answer or situation.
> >
>
> I have already addressed this above.
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike
> --
> Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]
>
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights
>
> Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
> newsgroups
>
> "Steve N." <me@here.now> wrote in message
> news:fwsle.932$MI4.2@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
> >
> >> "Steve N." <me@here.now> wrote in message
> >> news:qglle.88$q4.65@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >>
> >>>Mike, of course MS has the right to ensure that installations of their
> >>>software are legitimate before providing support (product updates are
> >>>support), and that justifies the use of PA and WGA, however there are
> >>>many documented cases where these mechanisms have failed to identify
> >>>legitimately licensed installations, leaving legitimately licensed
users
> >>>in a lurch.
> >>>
> >>>What, if anything, is MS doing to correct these flaws? So far all I've
> >>>seen MS do is make it more difficult, particularly with regard to OEM
> >>>installations and "unauthorized" product keys. It no longer only
applies
> >>>to major OEMs, either. Every OEM pre-install I have seen lately that is
> >>>not pre-activated encounters this.
> >>
> >>
> >> And that is why we are trialling this now and if you have an issue we
> >> would encourage you to call in and provide us with the feedback and
allow
> >> us to work though the issue with you too ensure these cases are
minimised
> >> when we "go live".
> >> from http://www.microsoft.com/genuine/downloads/FAQ.aspx?displaylang=en
> >>
> >> Q.
> >> What should I do if I have a problem with the validation process?
> >>
> >>
> >> A.
> >> If you cannot resolve your problem using this FAQ, then please use
> >> the Contact Us link at the bottom of Microsoft Download Center pages to
> >> request additional assistance.
> >>
> >
> > Do your own beta testing and quit springing it on paying customers.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>And while we're at it, please print the keys on the COA in a font large
> >>>enough to read without a magnifying glass and quit using character
> >>>strings like "8B3B8".
> >>
> >>
> >> The font used should allow you to differentiate those particular
> >> characters.
> >
> > It doesn't. Period. Poeple have been complaining about this for years!
> >
> >> However please provide this feedback via
> >>
http://support.microsoft.com/common/survey.aspx?scid=sw;en;1208&showpage=1&w
s=search
> >>
> >
> > YOU report it. What is your purpose here anyway, to merely divert issues
> > by spouting off MS's party line or to try and actually IMPROVE things
and
> > actually help SOLVE problems like (most of) the rest of us do?
> >
> > I'm not your beta tester and I have no responsibility to report anything
> > to MS. Why should *I* or anyone else have to bother? Again, what,
exactly
> > is your role here? This is a peer support group. I challenge you to be a
> > peer.
> >
> > I mean no disrespect to you Mike, but as an MS employee maybe *you*
should
> > take some responsibility in these issues and instead of saying "go to
this
> > url and do blahX3", say "I am forwarding your concerns to the
appropriate
> > people" and follow up. I.E. actually *DO* something about it!
> >
> > You still didn't answer my question, in fact you evaded it, which again
> > was:
> > "What, if anything, is MS doing to correct these flaws?"
> >
> > Making *us* test it for you is not an acceptable answer or situation.
> >
> > Steve
> >
> >>
> >>>Steve
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:46 PM
Alias wrote:
> "Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" <mikebran@online.microsoft.com> wrote in
> message news:e30DEOpYFHA.2420@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> "Alias" <aka@[notme]maskedandanonymous.org> wrote in message
>> news:%23FcXPrkYFHA.2380@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>>
>>> Third, I have to validate and worry that I will be refused
>>> validation when I want to use my computer, not explain to some MS
>>> operator that I really did pay for it and I really am not a thief.
>>>
>>
>> You do not "have" to validate - since you do not "have" to download
>> any of the free content we provide you as a value add to the
>> opertaing system. Your choice to not download any of this content
>> does not impact your ability to use your computer.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Mike
>
> Oh, WGA won't be required for security and program updates? Will WGA
> be required for MSN Messenger? IE 7? What *will* WGA be required for,
> do you know? "Value add" doesn't tell me much.

He's just trying to spin WGA into looking good, and it's obvious that he
is quite willing to dissemble to do it.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Alias
07-09-2005, 11:46 PM
"kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:e0HdwLqYFHA.3152@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Alias wrote:
>> "Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" <mikebran@online.microsoft.com> wrote in
>> message news:e30DEOpYFHA.2420@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>> "Alias" <aka@[notme]maskedandanonymous.org> wrote in message
>>> news:%23FcXPrkYFHA.2380@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Third, I have to validate and worry that I will be refused
>>>> validation when I want to use my computer, not explain to some MS
>>>> operator that I really did pay for it and I really am not a thief.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You do not "have" to validate - since you do not "have" to download
>>> any of the free content we provide you as a value add to the
>>> opertaing system. Your choice to not download any of this content
>>> does not impact your ability to use your computer.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Mike
>>
>> Oh, WGA won't be required for security and program updates? Will WGA
>> be required for MSN Messenger? IE 7? What *will* WGA be required for,
>> do you know? "Value add" doesn't tell me much.
>
> He's just trying to spin WGA into looking good, and it's obvious that he
> is quite willing to dissemble to do it.
>
> --
> Peace!
> Kurt

I just took a gander at what's available to download from MS. MSN Messenger
doesn't require WGA (gotta compete with AIM and Yahoo Messenger, yaknow) and
most that do aren't worth downloading. Windows Media 9 and 10 do, though,
which is strange considering all the money MS has spent fighting the EU over
including it in the OS.

Alias

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:46 PM
Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
> "Alias" <aka@[notme]maskedandanonymous.org> wrote in message
> news:%23FcXPrkYFHA.2380@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>
>>
>> Third, I have to validate and worry that I will be refused
>> validation when I want to use my computer, not explain to some MS
>> operator that I really did pay for it and I really am not a thief.
>>
>
> You do not "have" to validate - since you do not "have" to download
> any of the free content we provide you as a value add to the
> opertaing system. Your choice to not download any of this content
> does not impact your ability to use your computer.

"In the second half of 2005, visitors to the Microsoft Download Center
(http://www.microsoft.com/downloads) and Windows Update
(http://v5.windowsupdate.microsoft.com/v5consumer) will be required to
participate in Windows Genuine Advantage to access all content. To help
customers who may require more time to move to genuine Windows software,
Microsoft is offering security updates through Automatic Updates in
Windows, with or without Windows Genuine Advantage validation." -
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2005/jan05/01-26GenuineAdvantagePR.asp

So when WGA goes mandatory, Validation will be required to access all
content at the Microsoft Download Center and Windows Update, while
Automatic Updates will still provide security updates for a limited but
as of yet undisclosed time period. Eventually all downloads, including
security updates will require Validation, meaning that Windows users
will "HAVE" to validate, if they want to keep the all the MicroHoles in
XP patched!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:46 PM
Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
> "Steve N." <me@here.now> wrote in message
> news:fwsle.932$MI4.2@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
>>
>>> "Steve N." <me@here.now> wrote in message
>>> news:qglle.88$q4.65@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>>> Mike, of course MS has the right to ensure that installations of
>>>> their software are legitimate before providing support (product
>>>> updates are support), and that justifies the use of PA and WGA,
>>>> however there are many documented cases where these mechanisms
>>>> have failed to identify legitimately licensed installations,
>>>> leaving legitimately licensed users in a lurch.
>>>>
>>>> What, if anything, is MS doing to correct these flaws? So far all
>>>> I've seen MS do is make it more difficult, particularly with
>>>> regard to OEM installations and "unauthorized" product keys. It no
>>>> longer only applies to major OEMs, either. Every OEM pre-install I
>>>> have seen lately that is not pre-activated encounters this.
>>>
>>>
>>> And that is why we are trialling this now and if you have an issue
>>> we would encourage you to call in and provide us with the feedback
>>> and allow us to work though the issue with you too ensure these
>>> cases are minimised when we "go live".
>>> from
>>> http://www.microsoft.com/genuine/downloads/FAQ.aspx?displaylang=en
>>> Q.
>>> What should I do if I have a problem with the validation
>>> process? A.
>>> If you cannot resolve your problem using this FAQ, then please
>>> use the Contact Us link at the bottom of Microsoft Download Center
>>> pages to request additional assistance.
>>>
>>
>> Do your own beta testing and quit springing it on paying customers.
>>
>
> You do not have to use the WGA if you do not wish to at this time.
> But will millions and millions of systems out there, once we have
> done the necessary beta testing internally, we have to move to a
> wider pilot test to try and iron out those last few issues.

Huh? I don't see the beta tag on WGA! These wrinkles should have been
ironed out last year BEFORE MS impliment the voluntary WGA program! But
now I'll make sure to let anyone with a WGA question or problem that
they were the unwitting guinea pigs of MS!

The virtual Miss Evers' Boys!

> Hence
> the reason it is out there now to be used if you wish.

And to be test subjects without notification of that fact!

> If you do use
> it and have an issue then again you can either provide us some
> feedback and help the system improve or you can choose to do nothing.

LOL! Like I already showed you a guy that was directed to pay-for
support to resolve his WGA problem! Sounds like WGA problems are gonna
be another cash cow for MS!

"After going through several screens, without having to download any of
the ActiveX controls as I had already done it, I was presented with a
screen which informed me that I had an "Invalid License Key". I was
basically being informed that my copy of XP Pro was a pirated copy, or
at least the key was."

"I tried to contact Microsoft via their on-line e-mail help, only to be
told that it was not a Windows XP Pro issue, and that I should call a
premium rate number to get assistance." -
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general/browse_frm/thread/e71fc6f07d2b6638/3fe0d89d258426d0#3fe0d89d258426d0


> As regards springing this on paying customers - we make all these
> downloads available to you for free - we do not have to.

After selling us an OS full of security holes, you think you are being
magnamimous for providing patches to your security-disabled OS!

What utter arrogance!

> But we are
> trying to provide you the paying customer with added value at no cost
> to you and at the same time ensure that only you paying customers can
> access this added value.

THEY COULD ACCESS IT FINE BEFORE WGA, AND ALL WGA IS GONNA DO IS ADD
JUST ANOTHER THING THAT CAN AND WILL GO WRONG ACCESSING SECURITY
PATCHES!

People have enough problems getting updates through Windows Update and
Auto Update LONG before WGA reared its ugly head, and now ya'll are
gonna add yet another thing that can go wrong in updating the OS!


>>>> And while we're at it, please print the keys on the COA in a font
>>>> large enough to read without a magnifying glass and quit using
>>>> character strings like "8B3B8".
>>>
>>>
>>> The font used should allow you to differentiate those particular
>>> characters.
>>
>> It doesn't. Period. Poeple have been complaining about this for
>> years!
>>> However please provide this feedback via
>>> http://support.microsoft.com/common/survey.aspx?scid=sw;en;1208&showpage=1&ws=search
>>>
>>
>> YOU report it. What is your purpose here anyway, to merely divert
>> issues by spouting off MS's party line or to try and actually
>> IMPROVE things and actually help SOLVE problems like (most of) the
>> rest of us do?
>
> My role here is entirely voluntary - this is a peer to peer support
> newsgroup.

Go away, we don't need your obvious disinformation here!

> If you want to provide feedback then do so via the proper
> channels where it will reach the appropriate people, where as I
> could spend my spare time trying to find the right person for this or
> that piece of feedback provided here, instead of letting it be routed
> automatically by the site.
> My track record of helping others and problem solving is beyond
> question and all of these thousands of posts per year being done in
> my own time and not as part of my job.

A majority of which that I've seen are spouting MicroPropaganda, not in
helping people with Windows XP problems, so I'd say that there is some
question about your presence here!


>
>> I'm not your beta tester and I have no responsibility to report
>> anything to MS. Why should *I* or anyone else have to bother? Again,
>> what, exactly is your role here? This is a peer support group. I
>> challenge you to be a peer.
>>
>
> Feel free then to not contribute at all to WGA - but then do not
> complain if you are hit by an issue that your could have helped fix
> by providing a few minutes of feedback.

LOL! Most people are totally ignorant of the fact that they are
participating in an undisclosed beta testing program!

> By all means continue to not
> use WGA but it is coming and if as a technically competent user you
> could add something to the development then maybe you may wish to
> reconsider your role in this community.

LOL! Didn't you recently tell me that most of those that test MS
software are employees?

"The majority of our Beta testers are corporate employees"

Obviously you weren't counting the millions of users that were
unwittingly duped into testing WGA for ya'll!

And it is you that should consider getting out of our peer to peer
community, if all you are gonna do is be an apologist and propagandist
for your employer!

>
>> I mean no disrespect to you Mike, but as an MS employee maybe *you*
>> should take some responsibility in these issues and instead of
>> saying "go to this url and do blahX3", say "I am forwarding your
>> concerns to the appropriate people" and follow up. I.E. actually
>> *DO* something about it!
>
> As I have explained - the external systems will get your feedback to
> the right group much faster then I could.

As long as you pay for help!

>
>> You still didn't answer my question, in fact you evaded it, which
>> again was:
>> "What, if anything, is MS doing to correct these flaws?"
>>
>
> The answer is "working on then internally and with those who have
> experienced an issue and engaged with us to help resolve it."

You mean those you duped into testing this crap?

>
>> Making *us* test it for you is not an acceptable answer or situation.
>>
>
> I have already addressed this above.

Get lost, Mike. We aren't drinking the KoolAid you are trying to dupe
us into drinking!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

David Candy
07-09-2005, 11:47 PM
What was that dll post about. It's been deleted.
"kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:#bsXAmqYFHA.796@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
> > "Steve N." <me@here.now> wrote in message
> > news:fwsle.932$MI4.2@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >> Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Steve N." <me@here.now> wrote in message
> >>> news:qglle.88$q4.65@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >>>
> >>>> Mike, of course MS has the right to ensure that installations of
> >>>> their software are legitimate before providing support (product
> >>>> updates are support), and that justifies the use of PA and WGA,
> >>>> however there are many documented cases where these mechanisms
> >>>> have failed to identify legitimately licensed installations,
> >>>> leaving legitimately licensed users in a lurch.
> >>>>
> >>>> What, if anything, is MS doing to correct these flaws? So far all
> >>>> I've seen MS do is make it more difficult, particularly with
> >>>> regard to OEM installations and "unauthorized" product keys. It no
> >>>> longer only applies to major OEMs, either. Every OEM pre-install I
> >>>> have seen lately that is not pre-activated encounters this.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> And that is why we are trialling this now and if you have an issue
> >>> we would encourage you to call in and provide us with the feedback
> >>> and allow us to work though the issue with you too ensure these
> >>> cases are minimised when we "go live".
> >>> from
> >>> http://www.microsoft.com/genuine/downloads/FAQ.aspx?displaylang=en
> >>> Q.
> >>> What should I do if I have a problem with the validation
> >>> process? A.
> >>> If you cannot resolve your problem using this FAQ, then please
> >>> use the Contact Us link at the bottom of Microsoft Download Center
> >>> pages to request additional assistance.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Do your own beta testing and quit springing it on paying customers.
> >>
> >
> > You do not have to use the WGA if you do not wish to at this time.
> > But will millions and millions of systems out there, once we have
> > done the necessary beta testing internally, we have to move to a
> > wider pilot test to try and iron out those last few issues.
>
> Huh? I don't see the beta tag on WGA! These wrinkles should have been
> ironed out last year BEFORE MS impliment the voluntary WGA program! But
> now I'll make sure to let anyone with a WGA question or problem that
> they were the unwitting guinea pigs of MS!
>
> The virtual Miss Evers' Boys!
>
> > Hence
> > the reason it is out there now to be used if you wish.
>
> And to be test subjects without notification of that fact!
>
> > If you do use
> > it and have an issue then again you can either provide us some
> > feedback and help the system improve or you can choose to do nothing.
>
> LOL! Like I already showed you a guy that was directed to pay-for
> support to resolve his WGA problem! Sounds like WGA problems are gonna
> be another cash cow for MS!
>
> "After going through several screens, without having to download any of
> the ActiveX controls as I had already done it, I was presented with a
> screen which informed me that I had an "Invalid License Key". I was
> basically being informed that my copy of XP Pro was a pirated copy, or
> at least the key was."
>
> "I tried to contact Microsoft via their on-line e-mail help, only to be
> told that it was not a Windows XP Pro issue, and that I should call a
> premium rate number to get assistance." -
>
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general/brows
e_frm/thread/e71fc6f07d2b6638/3fe0d89d258426d0#3fe0d89d258426d0
>
>
> > As regards springing this on paying customers - we make all these
> > downloads available to you for free - we do not have to.
>
> After selling us an OS full of security holes, you think you are being
> magnamimous for providing patches to your security-disabled OS!
>
> What utter arrogance!
>
> > But we are
> > trying to provide you the paying customer with added value at no cost
> > to you and at the same time ensure that only you paying customers can
> > access this added value.
>
> THEY COULD ACCESS IT FINE BEFORE WGA, AND ALL WGA IS GONNA DO IS ADD
> JUST ANOTHER THING THAT CAN AND WILL GO WRONG ACCESSING SECURITY
> PATCHES!
>
> People have enough problems getting updates through Windows Update and
> Auto Update LONG before WGA reared its ugly head, and now ya'll are
> gonna add yet another thing that can go wrong in updating the OS!
>
>
> >>>> And while we're at it, please print the keys on the COA in a font
> >>>> large enough to read without a magnifying glass and quit using
> >>>> character strings like "8B3B8".
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The font used should allow you to differentiate those particular
> >>> characters.
> >>
> >> It doesn't. Period. Poeple have been complaining about this for
> >> years!
> >>> However please provide this feedback via
> >>>
http://support.microsoft.com/common/survey.aspx?scid=sw;en;1208&showpage=1&w
s=search
> >>>
> >>
> >> YOU report it. What is your purpose here anyway, to merely divert
> >> issues by spouting off MS's party line or to try and actually
> >> IMPROVE things and actually help SOLVE problems like (most of) the
> >> rest of us do?
> >
> > My role here is entirely voluntary - this is a peer to peer support
> > newsgroup.
>
> Go away, we don't need your obvious disinformation here!
>
> > If you want to provide feedback then do so via the proper
> > channels where it will reach the appropriate people, where as I
> > could spend my spare time trying to find the right person for this or
> > that piece of feedback provided here, instead of letting it be routed
> > automatically by the site.
> > My track record of helping others and problem solving is beyond
> > question and all of these thousands of posts per year being done in
> > my own time and not as part of my job.
>
> A majority of which that I've seen are spouting MicroPropaganda, not in
> helping people with Windows XP problems, so I'd say that there is some
> question about your presence here!
>
>
> >
> >> I'm not your beta tester and I have no responsibility to report
> >> anything to MS. Why should *I* or anyone else have to bother? Again,
> >> what, exactly is your role here? This is a peer support group. I
> >> challenge you to be a peer.
> >>
> >
> > Feel free then to not contribute at all to WGA - but then do not
> > complain if you are hit by an issue that your could have helped fix
> > by providing a few minutes of feedback.
>
> LOL! Most people are totally ignorant of the fact that they are
> participating in an undisclosed beta testing program!
>
> > By all means continue to not
> > use WGA but it is coming and if as a technically competent user you
> > could add something to the development then maybe you may wish to
> > reconsider your role in this community.
>
> LOL! Didn't you recently tell me that most of those that test MS
> software are employees?
>
> "The majority of our Beta testers are corporate employees"
>
> Obviously you weren't counting the millions of users that were
> unwittingly duped into testing WGA for ya'll!
>
> And it is you that should consider getting out of our peer to peer
> community, if all you are gonna do is be an apologist and propagandist
> for your employer!
>
> >
> >> I mean no disrespect to you Mike, but as an MS employee maybe *you*
> >> should take some responsibility in these issues and instead of
> >> saying "go to this url and do blahX3", say "I am forwarding your
> >> concerns to the appropriate people" and follow up. I.E. actually
> >> *DO* something about it!
> >
> > As I have explained - the external systems will get your feedback to
> > the right group much faster then I could.
>
> As long as you pay for help!
>
> >
> >> You still didn't answer my question, in fact you evaded it, which
> >> again was:
> >> "What, if anything, is MS doing to correct these flaws?"
> >>
> >
> > The answer is "working on then internally and with those who have
> > experienced an issue and engaged with us to help resolve it."
>
> You mean those you duped into testing this crap?
>
> >
> >> Making *us* test it for you is not an acceptable answer or situation.
> >>
> >
> > I have already addressed this above.
>
> Get lost, Mike. We aren't drinking the KoolAid you are trying to dupe
> us into drinking!
>
> --
> Peace!
> Kurt
> Self-anointed Moderator
> microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
> http://microscum.com/mscommunity
> "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
> "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
>
>

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:47 PM
David Candy wrote:
> What was that dll post about. It's been deleted.

Yeah, so was my reply!

See an incomplete list of my censored posts:

http://www.microscum.com/censored/

Direct link to the KuRTtRAIL.DLL post:

http://microscum.com/censored/200505270703/

Link to my new Blog:

http://www.kurttrail.com/kblog/

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

David Candy
07-09-2005, 11:47 PM
AFAIK I'm the only person who has posted to your blog.

Why bother removing it.

"kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:OfesCsrYFHA.2128@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> David Candy wrote:
> > What was that dll post about. It's been deleted.
>
> Yeah, so was my reply!
>
> See an incomplete list of my censored posts:
>
> http://www.microscum.com/censored/
>
> Direct link to the KuRTtRAIL.DLL post:
>
> http://microscum.com/censored/200505270703/
>
> Link to my new Blog:
>
> http://www.kurttrail.com/kblog/
>
> --
> Peace!
> Kurt
> Self-anointed Moderator
> microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
> http://microscum.com/mscommunity
> "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
> "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
>
>

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:47 PM
David Candy wrote:
> AFAIK I'm the only person who has posted to your blog.

You're the second. On the day I started it, T. Waters left a comment.

>
> Why bother removing it.

I wish they didn't. I always enjoy threads that make fun of me. And
that is probably why they removed it.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

NoStop
07-09-2005, 11:47 PM
kurttrail wrote:

> So is MS a predatory monopoly or not? Do you believe that a corporation
> has rights in an individuals home just because that individual bought a
> product from them?
>
Oh, has M$ been teleporting into your home recently? Kurt, you better
fashion one of those aluminum foil hats. I'm sure it'll offer you some
protection against these intrusions.

You know that you haven't bought a "product" from them, but rather bought a
license to use THEIR software under THEIR terms. Essentially M$ has
arranged a whole bunch of 1's and 0's in an attempt to put together an
"OS" (I use the term rather loosely in this case). To use those 1's and 0's
the way THEY arranged them, you have to agree to M$'s license. I don't see
how the physical location of where that software is being used has any
bearing whatsoever on whether or not you can ignore the terms of that
license. A corporation using M$ software, could claim that its office space
is its private property and M$ has no right to tell it, within the confines
of its walls, how it will use that software. Well, we all know that isn't
correct under the law. M$ can indeed enforce its license within the
sanctity of that private property, and does.

Is M$ a predatory monopoly? Is the Pope a Catholic? Of course! Can't take
the heat then get out of the kitchen. Don't like M$'s license, then stop
using its software instead of championing the pirating of M$'s software.


--
Re: Micro$oft OneCare:
"When a company is run like the mafia why would you not expect them to
progress to charging protection money." NF

NoStop
07-09-2005, 11:47 PM
Tom Pepper Willett wrote:

> Some people who live in the south don't identify with Bush.

Yes, you're correct. Somewhere under 50% of the voters in the South don't
support Bush and I applaud them.

> Ya'll was around long before he came around, and is acceptable.
>

Yes, acceptable within that conclave. The same social groupings that also
found separate schools and drinking fountains based on race as
"acceptable". BTW, Bush only put on his cowboy hat and used that language
to win votes from the South. He's an ivy league guy originally from
Connecticut.

> Now, would you like to talk about ebonics?
>
Not particularly interested in having that discussion with you.

> http://www.yourdictionary.com/library/drlang006.html
>
>
And that link concludes with:

"As for "yall," "youse," and "yuns," the social prejudice that made them
grammatical outlaws still holds."

And we all know where that "social prejudice" comes from - the past and
present behavior of the majority of people who routinely use that term.


--
Re: Micro$oft OneCare:
"When a company is run like the mafia why would you not expect them to
progress to charging protection money." NF

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:47 PM
NoStop wrote:
> kurttrail wrote:
>
>> So is MS a predatory monopoly or not? Do you believe that a
>> corporation has rights in an individuals home just because that
>> individual bought a product from them?
>>
> Oh, has M$ been teleporting into your home recently? Kurt, you better
> fashion one of those aluminum foil hats. I'm sure it'll offer you some
> protection against these intrusions.

LOL!

>
> You know that you haven't bought a "product" from them, but rather
> bought a license to use THEIR software under THEIR terms.

I bought a copy of copyrighted software, that has a shrink-wrap license.
My TV also came with a shrink-wrap license.

MS has yet to prove their post-sale shrink-wrap license claims to strip
an individual of their "fair use" rights.

> Essentially
> M$ has arranged a whole bunch of 1's and 0's in an attempt to put
> together an "OS" (I use the term rather loosely in this case). To use
> those 1's and 0's the way THEY arranged them, you have to agree to
> M$'s license.

Do you know contract law? Even accepting that MS's shrink-wrap license
is a valid private non--commercial use contract, which has yet to be
legally proven, but even accepting that it is, there is no law that make
breaking term of a contract illegal in and of itself. There are
circumstances where contract terms can be legally breeched. And under
the contract law, MS would have the burden of proof, and be able to
prove an actual loss to win a breech of contract civil case.

> I don't see how the physical location of where that
> software is being used has any bearing whatsoever on whether or not
> you can ignore the terms of that license.

Not so much the place, but the usage. Private non-commercial use is a
"fair use."

"Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the
copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use,"
said the US Supreme Court in the Sony Betamax Case.

MS does not possess the right to limit my right to "fair use."

> A corporation using M$
> software, could claim that its office space is its private property
> and M$ has no right to tell it, within the confines of its walls, how
> it will use that software.

A corporation couldn't claim that their use was a fair use. An
individual can!

> Well, we all know that isn't correct under
> the law. M$ can indeed enforce its license within the sanctity of
> that private property, and does.

As a commerical use license.

> Is M$ a predatory monopoly? Is the Pope a Catholic? Of course! Can't
> take the heat then get out of the kitchen. Don't like M$'s license,
> then stop using its software instead of championing the pirating of
> M$'s software.

I promote legal "fair use" and their is no legal precedent that says
that MS can limit an individual's right to "fair use" and no legal
precedent that "fair use" is piracy.

But NoBrains, you are bright enough to understand and stand up for your
rights.

And MS has no right to strip any individual of their rights, their
shrink-wrap license is NOT a law unto itself.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:47 PM
NoStop wrote:
> Tom Pepper Willett wrote:
>
>> Some people who live in the south don't identify with Bush.
>
> Yes, you're correct. Somewhere under 50% of the voters in the South
> don't support Bush and I applaud them.

And I would be one of them.

>
>> Ya'll was around long before he came around, and is acceptable.
>>
>
> Yes, acceptable within that conclave. The same social groupings that
> also found separate schools and drinking fountains based on race as
> "acceptable". BTW, Bush only put on his cowboy hat and used that
> language to win votes from the South. He's an ivy league guy
> originally from Connecticut.

He was raised in Texas.

>
>> Now, would you like to talk about ebonics?
>>
> Not particularly interested in having that discussion with you.
>
>> http://www.yourdictionary.com/library/drlang006.html
>>
>>
> And that link concludes with:
>
> "As for "yall," "youse," and "yuns," the social prejudice that made
> them grammatical outlaws still holds."
>
> And we all know where that "social prejudice" comes from - the past
> and present behavior of the majority of people who routinely use that
> term.

LOL! Grammar laming is just a way to runaway from the subject of a
given thread.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Don Burnette
07-09-2005, 11:47 PM
NoStop wrote:
> kurttrail wrote:
>
>> So is MS a predatory monopoly or not? Do you believe that a
>> corporation has rights in an individuals home just because that
>> individual bought a product from them?
>>
> Oh, has M$ been teleporting into your home recently? Kurt, you better
> fashion one of those aluminum foil hats. I'm sure it'll offer you some
> protection against these intrusions.
>
> You know that you haven't bought a "product" from them, but rather
> bought a license to use THEIR software under THEIR terms. Essentially
> M$ has arranged a whole bunch of 1's and 0's in an attempt to put
> together an "OS" (I use the term rather loosely in this case). To use
> those 1's and 0's the way THEY arranged them, you have to agree to
> M$'s license. I don't see how the physical location of where that
> software is being used has any bearing whatsoever on whether or not
> you can ignore the terms of that license. A corporation using M$
> software, could claim that its office space is its private property
> and M$ has no right to tell it, within the confines of its walls, how
> it will use that software. Well, we all know that isn't correct under
> the law. M$ can indeed enforce its license within the sanctity of
> that private property, and does.
>
> Is M$ a predatory monopoly? Is the Pope a Catholic? Of course! Can't
> take the heat then get out of the kitchen. Don't like M$'s license,
> then stop using its software instead of championing the pirating of
> M$'s software.


At one time, I felt similar. I felt he was championing the pirating of
software, specifically the MS Windows XP OS.
After reading more of his posts and some of his statements, I really don't
think he is encouraging what I would perceive to be pirating. Kurt has
actually made some pretty good arguments actually, against the MS Eula and
how it is worded. Lot of gray areas there. I have even found myself
thinking, is it really wrong to install the same copy of XP, on two machines
I have right here in my home? Is that really what MS intended PA to
prevent? Or was it's primary focus to prevent folks from sharing their copy
of the OS with others, for them to install on their machines, without paying
for the license. The latter, I can certainly understand, not so sure anymore
on the former..

Let me give an example of why I am giving second thought. I have a fairly
new machine I built, a 64 bit AMD system, a couple of months ago. I run Win
XP Pro on it right now. I also have run the RC2 version of XP Pro64 in dual
boot. I will eventually purchase XP Pro 64, probably in the very near
future. I have only couple of peripherals i am waiting for 64 bit drivers
for, and I will then purchase and switch to running XP Pro64 completely. The
hardware mfgs of both of these devices, are currently working on 64 bit
drivers.
My older system, I only need to buy a video card, hard drive, and monitor
for, and I will have it running again for my daughter, will put a wireless
network card in it so she can share my cable modem access. I will want to
put the current 32 bit copy of XP Pro, on that machine.

Now, do I run out and buy a new copy of XP Pro or Home, to put on her
machine, knowing that I will be taking this current XP Pro off this system
probably in the next 2-3 months, or do I go ahead and install this same copy
of XP Pro on her machine, knowing I will be taking it off this one in 2-3
months? To me, the latter makes much more sense. I mean, what the hell am I
going to do with this copy of XP Pro when I take it off this machine?? See
where I am going with this?

Right now, my inclination, is to assemble her computer, install the same XP
Pro copy that I run on this machine now on her machine in the next room,
activate it by phone if necessary, and just tell them I have changed my
system. Makes lot more sense to me, than wasting money on a new copy, which
will leave me with an extra copy should I do that...

Now, am I a pirate if I do this? I certainly don't feel like I would be. I
own both machines, they are both technically my computers, even though I am
sure my daughter will consider one hers :)..



--
Don Burnette

"When you decide something is impossible to do, try to stay out of the
way of the man that's doing it."

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)
07-09-2005, 11:48 PM
On Fri, 27 May 2005 09:08:41 +0100, "Mike Brannigan [MSFT]"

>You do not "have" to validate - since you do not "have" to download any of
>the free content we provide you as a value add to the opertaing system.

Does validation only apply to value-ads, or does it apply to
fitness-for-use repairs (patches, Service packs) as well?

>Your choice to not download any of this content does not impact your ability
>to use your computer.

That depends on the answer to the last question, which is not a
rhetorical one; this issue is not one that I've beeing following, so I
really do want to know what the policy for code repairs is.



>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Gone to bloggery: http://cquirke.blogspot.com
>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)
07-09-2005, 11:48 PM
On Fri, 27 May 2005 10:53:20 +0200, "Alias"

>Oh, WGA won't be required for security and program updates? Will WGA be
>required for MSN Messenger? IE 7? What *will* WGA be required for, do you
>know? "Value add" doesn't tell me much.

That's what I asked too. By definition, patches and Service Packs are
not supposed to extend functionality or add new features, so they are
repairs to correct defects in what you bought, i.e. a fufilment of the
value you thought you already had.

In contrast, new subsystem upgrades such as a new DirectX, IE, Windows
Media Player or MSN Messager are value-adds, and thus it's more up to
the vendor as to the terms under which they are offered. May be free,
free with strings attached, or pay for - vendor's choice, rightly so.

The grey areas come in when a fault is fixed within an upgrade, and
the upgrade is positioned as the only way to fix the fault.

The chances are, the EUL"A" absolves the vendor from any fitness for
use whatsoever, or any responsibility for consequences that might
arise from the use of the product. If "viewing" a JPEG causes hostile
code to run without the user's knowldege or consent, and that cleans
out your bank account, that's your problem.

It's common and acceptable to exclude consequent damage from vendor
liability, as that damage is unbounded. Else you'd get the "golden
diskette" story: "I paid $1 for your blank diskette, saved a contract
worth a million dollars on it, and now the disk won't read and reports
an error - you owe me a million dollars!".

However, the EUL"A" may go further and absolve the vendor of any
responsibility to make the product work at all, even beyond "work" as
in "roadworthy". It would be quite a divergence from general consumer
standards for a vendor to ship something that does not work, or is
unsafe to use, and for that vendor to escape all liability including
the duty to repair the defective product.

Even if the EUL"A" does secure that right for MS, if I were MS, I'd be
loath to bring this into public scrutiny. If it conflicts with
regional law or constitution, the EUL"A" could be declared null and
void. Places that do find such an EUL"A" acceptable may come under
public pressure to change their acceptability standards.

And so the sleeping dog wakes up.



>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Gone to bloggery: http://cquirke.blogspot.com
>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)
07-09-2005, 11:48 PM
On Fri, 27 May 2005 06:12:55 -0400, "kurttrail"

>Eventually all downloads, including security updates will require Validation

Hm, I can see a useful malware "keep 'em owned" scenario evolving
here; break the ability to validate, and thus block patching, while
leaving the system operative as a malware-owned box.



>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Gone to bloggery: http://cquirke.blogspot.com
>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:49 PM
cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
> On Fri, 27 May 2005 06:12:55 -0400, "kurttrail"
>
>> Eventually all downloads, including security updates will require
>> Validation
>
> Hm, I can see a useful malware "keep 'em owned" scenario evolving
> here; break the ability to validate, and thus block patching, while
> leaving the system operative as a malware-owned box.
>

Yeah. Anyway to create more Zombies WILL be tried. The malware scum
are getting much more subtle, too, and it's getting much harder to know
when your machine has been taken over.

I've started my own current events blog last week. Check it out when
you get a chance.

http://www.kurttrail.com/kblog

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:49 PM
David Candy wrote:

>>> What was that dll post about. It's been deleted.
> Why bother removing it.

I figured out why the "KuRTtRAIL.DLL" thread was deleted! The original
post was future dated two days ahead.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)
07-09-2005, 11:51 PM
On Sat, 28 May 2005 18:02:10 -0400, "kurttrail"

>I've started my own current events blog last week. Check it out when
>you get a chance.

>http://www.kurttrail.com/kblog

Hm, yes. Interesting take on Netscape 8; that including both IE and
Mozilla engines might equal IE's functionality plus Mozilla's
security. By desgn, maybe, but what I expect is twice the exploitable
risk surface, as if all web pages were simultaneously viewed by both
browsers so that code defects in either could exploited.

I'm more inclined to drop Netscape 7.2 for Firefox 1.x and concentate
of keeping up with Firefox's monthly "oops" 1.0.x revisions, than go
from Netscape 7 to 8. Currently I still use and deploy Netscape 4.8
(set to allow nothing), Netscape 7.2 (set to pretty much default
risk-taking) and IE (set to prompt on everything, as a
risk-exploratory browser) and now Firefox. That's quite a code bulk
to update, so I may rationalize to Firefox + IE and that's it.



>------------------------ ---- --- -- - - - -
Forget http://cquirke.blogspot.com and check out a
better one at http://topicdrift.blogspot.com instead!
>------------------------ ---- --- -- - - - -

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:52 PM
cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
> On Sat, 28 May 2005 18:02:10 -0400, "kurttrail"
>
>> I've started my own current events blog last week. Check it out when
>> you get a chance.
>
>> http://www.kurttrail.com/kblog
>
> Hm, yes. Interesting take on Netscape 8; that including both IE and
> Mozilla engines might equal IE's functionality plus Mozilla's
> security. By desgn, maybe, but what I expect is twice the exploitable
> risk surface, as if all web pages were simultaneously viewed by both
> browsers so that code defects in either could exploited.

Yes, I see your point, but I pretty much view everything in Firefox
view, and only use IE view when I know the site. Like my own! The new
netscape is great for checking out how a webpage is gonna look in both
types of browsers!

The IE engine is already installed and exploitable in XP already, the
new netscapes just saves some time openig up IE.

But again I see your point, and it is a very valid one.

>
> I'm more inclined to drop Netscape 7.2 for Firefox 1.x and concentate
> of keeping up with Firefox's monthly "oops" 1.0.x revisions, than go
> from Netscape 7 to 8. Currently I still use and deploy Netscape 4.8
> (set to allow nothing), Netscape 7.2 (set to pretty much default
> risk-taking) and IE (set to prompt on everything, as a
> risk-exploratory browser) and now Firefox. That's quite a code bulk
> to update, so I may rationalize to Firefox + IE and that's it.

Right now I have

Netscape 8.01
Firefox 1.0.4
Mozilla Suite 1.78
Opera version unsure
Enigma [which is on top of an IE engine]

Eventually, I can see just using Netscape. Even Windows Update works
with Netscape!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"


WGA Hacked?! Get a Fair and Balance Perspective!