backtop

Blog: Software "Darkness Descends" on Windows Vista Pirates
Chris Peredun - September 12, 2007 8:31 AM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 42 comment(s) - last by mars777.. on Sep 16 at 10:49 PM
Pirated copies of Vista to enter "Reduced Functionality" mode this week

While Microsoft has been the butt of many a joke regarding the infamous Blue Screen of Death, the activation of new anti-piracy features in the Windows Vista operating system may not be as funny to end users who experience it.

Computerworld obtained a copy of an email sent by a supposed Microsoft representative to Vista distributors and the original author didn't pull any punches in describing the effects of the new "Reduced Functionality Mode" on pirated copies of Vista:

"... Anyone who has a pirated copy of Vista will experience:
A black screen after one hour of browsing
No start menu or task bar
No desktop"

In addition, certain aspects of performance and appearance in Vista would be disabled, including the Aero user interface, ReadyBoost, Windows Defender and non-critical updates.

According to Michael Calore of Wired, Microsoft confirms that the email was a hoax and was in no way endorsed by the company. "The reporter received inaccurate information," said a Microsoft representative. As it stands, there are no changes to Microsoft existing Reduced Functionality Mode.

Although this means that no new measures have been implemented to deter pirates, no tears will be shed for pirates knowingly using illegal copies. Users who purchased Vista through a shady OEM may be less than pleased to see their computer use reduced to one hour at a time and users who purchased a legitimate copy may also encounter this problem if Microsoft's Windows Genuine Advantage servers suffer a failure as they did at the end of last August.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Impressive, most impressive
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/12/2007 1:37:28 PM , Rating: 3
Vista is the first OS I purchased since Win 95. (Microsoft also hooked me up with a few free copies of Vista Ultimate and Office 2007 Professional) I have been completely satisfied with my purchase, in fact I broke down and dropped the full $400 on a Retail copy of Vista Ultimate on release day. I figure I will use the OS for 3 years maybe 4 (Basically until the next version of Windows rolls out). That comes to a rough cost of 36 cents per day for 3 years, or an even lower 27 cents per day for 4 years. It seems easy to justify the cost of even $400 when you look at it that way. Smart shoppers will roll an OEM copy of Ultimate or Home Premium.

Ultimate OEM (3 years) = $200 or 18 cents per day.
Home Premium OEM (3 years) $112 or 10 cents per day.




RE: Impressive, most impressive
By Spuke on 9/12/2007 1:41:45 PM , Rating: 2
I can get Vista Ultimate through work for $260. I just may do it but after the first service pack comes out.


RE: Impressive, most impressive
By Dracip on 9/12/2007 1:49:46 PM , Rating: 1
I bought a new laptop with vista on it.

After three days I brought it back and got one of the last with xp.

Now I can work again without frustration.


RE: Impressive, most impressive
By TomZ on 9/12/2007 3:39:24 PM , Rating: 2
What were the specific problems you were having with Vista?


RE: Impressive, most impressive
By Shawn on 9/12/2007 5:37:07 PM , Rating: 2
Incompetence.


RE: Impressive, most impressive
By TomZ on 9/12/2007 7:44:25 PM , Rating: 2
LOL, probably true.

I think a lot of the people who make vague claims of problems with Vista are just Microsoft haters trying to get in a cheap shot. Any time you ask them to describe the specific problem they are having, all of a sudden they don't respond. Probably the people writing these comments have never run Vista once, ever.

Just for the record, I'm not saying that Vista is perfect. It's an upgrade of XP, that's all. It's not revolutionary, it's not going to set the world on fire - but it's not crap either as these naysayers say.


RE: Impressive, most impressive
By Canizorro on 9/12/2007 8:46:19 PM , Rating: 2
I see you commenting a lot on microsoft questions so thought maybe you could answer this one. In Vista, the media player has stopped playing dvd's due to a DRM error it gives. I've updated my video driver (ati 850x), updated the firmware on my dvd drive (plextor px-716a), yes the dvd's are legal, and tried different codecs, and it was working before with the same dvd's. Still no go. I also tried restoring the system to the furtherest point back I could go. I am using VLC player to play my dvd's but would like media player to do what it's suppose to. Any ideas besides reinstalling the OS, which is the suggestion I get from the majority of the forums I have asked?


RE: Impressive, most impressive
By xphile on 9/12/2007 10:15:31 PM , Rating: 2
Install Media Player Classic - I prefer it by far to VLC and it supports every format known to man and is based on the old MS media player before they went absolutely stupid on making it as impossible to use simply as they could. I use it for everything - all my dvds, and all media files too.


RE: Impressive, most impressive
By TomZ on 9/12/2007 10:57:46 PM , Rating: 2
What's the error message you're getting?

I also wonder why you had to install different codecs. I've been able to play DVDs with Windows Media Player in Vista without having to load anything.

Without knowing anything specific, my generic advice would be to call Microsoft tech support, if Vista/WMP aren't playing DVDs properly.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/13/2007 7:26:57 AM , Rating: 2
Canizorro can you post a screenshot of the error your getting in media player regarding your DVD? This has nothing to do with your device drivers or firmware it has everything to do with the player and/or the os not decoding properly. Need a screenshot of the error so I can dig around.


RE: Impressive, most impressive
By codeThug on 9/12/2007 11:34:04 PM , Rating: 2
I've thrown code on Microsoft since windows 3.1, along with unix boxes galore, not to mention VMS. Personally, I don't give a shit as long as the OS is stable, or I can do things to make it stable EASILY.

I too bought a new Acer laptop with Vista installed on it. After days of trying to get the network from constantly going off line and simple programs to run, waiting for the damn thing to boot, or apps to load, I gave up and went back to XP. The laptop runs much much faster on the 2gig of ram with XP, the network stays up, and my software works.

Problem solved, and I am missing out on nothing... Not even on DX10 as most game developers have tweaked their engines to look just as good on DX9.

Why do you always default to angry Microsoft bashers whenever somebody posts something negative about Vista. No, I'm not talking about trolling or flaming, just an honest OPINION. I had too many problems with it, and at this point in my life I have little patients for premature, overpriced, unneeded OS releases from Microsoft. I don't give a crap if it was Microsoft's problem, Acer's problem, sun spots, or subspace interference. I went out and bought a version of XP and wiped Vista.

If and when the thing becomes, and here's the important part Tom, so pay attention, OVERWHELMINGLY STABLE, and the price comes down, and I feel like spending the extra to double my memory to 4gig, will I take another look at it.

Sorry, I forgot to write down the error codes for you.

exit(-1)


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/13/2007 7:20:49 AM , Rating: 1
I have no issues with any of the above on my Vista Ultimate 32-bit laptop. I'm going to take a guess and just say you were doing something that either...

A) You didn't know what you were doing.
B) You didnt bother to check to see if the same methods work in Vista.
C) Your shit only works in XP when you hack the hell out of it and its no wonder it doesnt work in Vista without similiar hacking.
D) You still haven't posted technical details regarding any of your problems with "network and software".


RE: Impressive, most impressive
By Polynikes on 9/15/2007 3:15:45 PM , Rating: 2
I tried the Vista RCs and thought it was bloated crap that ran like crap. I guess means I'm really a Mac guy in disguise, huh?


RE: Impressive, most impressive
By mars777 on 9/16/2007 10:49:19 PM , Rating: 2
Inability to run MICROSOFT Visual Studio.
Slower OS, with slower gaming.
No EAX.
No support for SLI!
Wireless card randomly hanging (native driver).
Slow without the memory caching, 20% of cached memory not freed when activated.

I have dual boot to Ubuntu to showcase desktop eyecandy. I just need an OS that can be fast and handle games.

These are my two cents.
They were enough to go back to XP.


RE: Impressive, most impressive
By Oregonian2 on 9/12/2007 1:49:59 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Smart shoppers will roll an OEM copy of Ultimate or Home Premium.


IMO Smart shoppers will buy a copy of XP while they still can. I know of a couple friends who bought new machines with Vista and took them back to the store to be XP'd after giving up on Vista. Vista isn't finished yet (compatibility things are promised but not delivered yet). Maybe after SP1 or SP2 it'll get usable.


RE: Impressive, most impressive
By TomZ on 9/12/2007 3:36:00 PM , Rating: 2
In my experience, people who are having compatibility problems with apps in Vista simply haven't figured out how to use the app compatibility settings in Vista. By those I mean the run in XP compatibility mode setting, and more importantly, run as administrator. I've yet to see these settings fail.

I've got at least 60 older apps I run here on Vista, and they all run just fine. I also have a bunch of games that the kids run - many of which are designed for Windows 95! - that I can run under Vista. These are nasty old programs written in the days when VGA resolution was king - still no problems in Vista.

In short, I think your analysis of Vista is exaggerated, and I think some people are just resistant to change. There is no area where XP is superior to Vista, period.


RE: Impressive, most impressive
By Lightning III on 9/12/2007 4:22:00 PM , Rating: 4
xp is still superior to vista in gaming and the lack of DRM bloatware

maybe next year or how about gaming with vista 64 on any nvidia hardware


RE: Impressive, most impressive
By TomZ on 9/12/2007 4:45:28 PM , Rating: 2
The gaming reviews I saw showed XP and Vista basically the same - some games slightly faster in XP and some slightly faster in Vista, but neither really outperforming the other. Are you reading otherwise?

DRM bloatware? What do you mean specifically? You mean after you download and install iTunes? Kidding. Please tell me specifically what you mean - I'm not aware of any extra DRM in Vista.


RE: Impressive, most impressive
By sxr7171 on 9/13/2007 11:24:24 AM , Rating: 4
How about this DRM Bloatware: http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_c...

Nobody talks about it anymore. What about that stupid network behavior that was uncovered a while ago where it would throttle data transfers over the playback of a fricking MP3? What process is so important during the playback of an MP3 is so important that processor cycles must be reserved for it at the cost of network transfers?


By gingerstewart55 on 9/12/2007 5:38:16 PM , Rating: 3
My primary HD crapped out four days ago and took out my XP install. But I had a copy of Vista Ultimate on a secondary HD, hadn't really used it but was sort of forced into it until I got my new HD back from Seagate.

Now, I'm going to have to disagree with much of your rants. Company of Heroes is playing quite nicely on Vista Ultimate, x64 version. Not a problem at all.

No DRM problems....and they'd only become an issue with BluRay or HD-DVDs being output to a television. Otherwise, that dreaded "DRM bloat" is just FUD.

And as for the nVidia hardware problems using Vista 64, blame nVidia, not Microsoft. nVidia is the company responsible for writing proper drivers for Vista....seems ATI/AMD managed to do just that...why cannot nVidia?

Put the blame where it belongs.


RE: Impressive, most impressive
By tigen on 9/13/2007 6:30:21 PM , Rating: 2
Those pricing schemes are still crap. Why have Home Premium and Business separate? Lots of people use a machine for both home and business, and Ultimate is a ripoff. Business is good enough I suppose but it just looks cheap for MS to withhold the stupid little games and the DVD maker or whatever is missing.

Mac OS X has one version. Linux distributions don't try to nickel and dime each feature.


This is bogus
By eleeter on 9/12/2007 1:39:27 PM , Rating: 4
According to the Wired, no such "black screen of death" bomb exists.

blog.wired.com/monkeybites/2007/09/microsoft-vist a.html




RE: This is bogus
By JazzMang on 9/12/2007 1:41:39 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. If it was a new security measure, you would have seen an update come down related to WGA recently.

I have not.
I call BS.


RE: This is bogus
By Assimilator87 on 9/12/2007 1:43:27 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder if this will affect copies that are hacked OEM versions that don't need activating.


RE: This is bogus
By eleeter on 9/12/2007 1:45:45 PM , Rating: 2
Or to be more clear, "the company has not rolled out any updates to Windows Vista's anti-piracy platform"

So yes the reduced functionality mode of course still exists, but there are no changes to how it works via Windows update etc.


RE: This is bogus
By Assimilator87 on 9/12/2007 1:48:05 PM , Rating: 3
According to The Inquirer, it's BS:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=42285


RE: This is bogus
By Expunged on 9/12/2007 2:07:39 PM , Rating: 2
Damn, you posted while I was posting the same thing below...


Sounds like BS
By razor2025 on 9/12/2007 1:44:30 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds pretty bullsh!t to me. Especially with this anecdote:

quote:
users who purchased a legitimate copy may also encounter this problem if Microsoft's Windows Genuine Advantage servers suffer a failure as they did at the end of last August.


If I was that paying customer and have to sit through more activation bullcrap, I'd simply hit the torrents for hacked out version of Vista. This is one more reason to avoid Vista like plague, until fix their "beta OS".




RE: Sounds like BS
By TomZ on 9/12/2007 4:00:08 PM , Rating: 2
That's pretty irrational. We've got quite a few machines here running Vista, and we have never lost a minute of productivity due to WGA or activiation issues with Vista.

Compare that to "conventional" license management products like apps protected by FlexLM - now there, we've lost tons of time due to license manager problems keeping us from being able to use the software that we legally "own" (licensed). Compared to this re-occurring nightmare, Windows activation is like a dream.


RE: Sounds like BS
By Spuke on 9/12/2007 4:47:22 PM , Rating: 2
We use FlexLM also and have had ZERO downtime. The key is to not use it the way it's setup out of the box. All you need is the Flex daemon, the vendor daemon, the FlexLM.exe, and the license file. Create a Windows service on a lmgrd.exe for each license file using the installs.exe in the Flex SDK. This will enable you to run multiple licenses on one server each in their own service without having to install anything else. And you can still use the FlexLM Tool to monitor each license. Works like a champ and no downtime.


RE: Sounds like BS
By TomZ on 9/12/2007 5:04:27 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting, but I still think it's too complicated and intrusive. And on top of that, a lot of the problems we run into are really stupid vendor mistakes like they change the name of the feature within the software, release the software, and then don't send us updated license files. Duh!

In any case, my point is that Microsoft's system is tons less intrusive.


RE: Sounds like BS
By johnsonx on 9/13/2007 6:57:23 PM , Rating: 2
Even the mention of FlexLM sometimes gives me the same feeling as the sound of fingernails on a chalk board does.


BS for sure...
By Expunged on 9/12/2007 2:06:57 PM , Rating: 2
Upon reading this article I was quite sure that it was BS like many of the people here. I thought I'd give it a further look though since I'd hate to be struck with phone calls from users who are getting this on legit systems. First step, Google. Took me all of about 30 seconds to come up with this article:

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=42...

Not that The Inquirer is a very trusty news sources but I'd hate to see them be more credible than DT. The inclusion of the link to the wired blog which seems to have some fairly valid information makes me question why DT posted this without even researching the counter point. Especially considering the Wired blog is dated yesterday...

Oh well, nobody can get the news right 100% of the time.




RE: BS for sure...
By TomZ on 9/12/2007 2:13:53 PM , Rating: 2
In addition, this type of restriction doesn't make sense from a business standpoint for Microsoft to do at this time. The amount of negative PR this would generate would be tremendous. It is much smarter to very gradually roll out restrictions against pirated copies.


RE: BS for sure...
By Expunged on 9/12/2007 5:18:07 PM , Rating: 2
Furthermore, it'd be very difficult for Microsoft to actually deploy something like this. How would they begin to tell the OEM computers who Acer and other OEM's actually activated as compared to the ones that are pirated but using OEM activation methods. I could see something like this working for the timerstop, program X checks days left til activation today, waits 24 hours and checks again. If the values are the same, it's obviously been tampered with.

It would take something on the service pack scale with OEM support and help to make something like this effective.

Additionally, with deployment of a Windows Update, how in the world would this even be an issue? That would imply that MS has had this capability since at least the last major release of updates, why wait until now to pull the trigger? The gullibility of people.


RE: BS for sure...
By TomZ on 9/12/2007 7:46:28 PM , Rating: 2
That's right, and in addition, if Microsoft did deploy such a thing, the hackers would be all over that like white on rice. It would be disabled pretty quickly, and Microsoft realizes that. The amount of effort hackers will collectively apply is proportional to the usability problems that Microsoft introduces for pirated copies.


Pirates?
By gramboh on 9/12/2007 3:41:02 PM , Rating: 2
I thought the pirated versions of Vista widely available are the corporate volume license version that never contacts MS for activation. So the only way MS could ever tell if it is legit is through WGA, but isn't that also cracked? (Note I'm running XP - but this is what I have read).




Pirates use Vista?
By jskirwin on 9/12/07, Rating: -1
RE: Pirates use Vista?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 9/12/2007 1:36:24 PM , Rating: 2
In their minds:

"Why not?"


RE: Pirates use Vista?
By Misty Dingos on 9/12/2007 1:40:57 PM , Rating: 1
My wife's laptop has Vista home prem. on it. Honestly I really like it. I think that Vista is a pretty nice OS. I am not going to run out and dump my version of XP for Vista but if I were to build a new PC I would use Vista on it.

As far as those that have pirated copies of Vista. Well you are on your own. I don't have a lot of sympathy for you. If you bought your PC from a shady outlet and haven't figured out that the copy of Vista on your machine is the same as the one on a couple of hundred other machines well that is too bad also.


RE: Pirates use Vista?
By dude on 9/13/2007 2:31:28 AM , Rating: 3
So how would someone even begin to figure out that their copy of Vista is the same as the one on a couple of hundred other machines?

Do you mean that they deserved to be victimized because they were clueless that they got pulled a fast one?


RE: Pirates use Vista?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/13/2007 7:25:16 AM , Rating: 2
This has been going on since the dawn of time, its nothing new.


"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki