backtop


Print 44 comment(s) - last by gtnbuckeye.. on Jul 11 at 10:58 AM

The hits just keep coming

Microsoft is facing yet another lawsuit over its Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) antipiracy software. This time, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Microsoft in the U.S. District Court in Seattle. The plaintiffs’ complaints in this case mirror those of a suit filed last week. InfoWorld reports:

The new suit lists its plaintiff as Engineered Process Controls and Univex, along with citizens Edward Misfud, David DiDomizio, and Martin Sifuentes, who are listed as owners of licensed copies of Windows XP running WGA. The suit alleges WGA is spyware and that Microsoft misled consumers by labeling it as a critical security update. The plaintiffs maintain Microsoft did not make users aware that WGA frequently contacted its central servers.

Microsoft has already released a new version of its WGA utility which doesn't phone home as often and released instructions on how to remove the older WGA software from machines through some registry editing. Some programmers have even gone so far as to release a small software utility which removes the software without users having to weed through the Windows registry.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Oh they will get it soon
By vingamm on 7/5/2006 1:35:35 PM , Rating: 2
I understand them wanting to protect there IPs, but the WGA program is VERY intrusive. Hopefully enough suits will be filed that M$ will see that it is not profitable to continue to program. I think the next step is to get them to divulge how much information they have access to in your PC.

Some of us work on sensitive material and have IPs of our own that we would rather keep private. I think it is very unfair that we neither know how or how deep WGA can probe our systems.

From a personal experience, I have had to apply for two brand new licenses because I made radical upgrades to and sold a PC and kept my WinXP. Only to find that my license was deemed pirated. That in it self could be a suit. The countless hours lost because this ineffectual software requires you to prove you are legit. I say keep it coming they will learn




RE: Oh they will get it soon
By masher2 (blog) on 7/5/2006 1:53:20 PM , Rating: 1
> "Some of us work on sensitive material and have IPs of our own that we would rather keep private."

I hate to confuse you with the facts, but if you have auto-update on, you're sending Microsoft your IP address every time it checks for an update. There's nothing new in WGA in this regard.

> I have had to apply for two brand new licenses because I made radical upgrades to and sold a PC and kept my WinXP. Only to find that my license was deemed pirated. That in it self could be a suit...

Yes. A suit by Microsoft against you, for violating the OEM license agreement. But don't worry, I doubt they'll take action against you.


RE: Oh they will get it soon
By Gooberslot on 7/5/2006 6:19:36 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, M$ phones home even if you turn auto updates off. The only way to make it stop is to disable the service.


RE: Oh they will get it soon
By Gooberslot on 7/5/2006 6:21:05 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, replace M$ with Windows. I should have proofread before posting.


RE: Oh they will get it soon
By allnighter on 7/5/2006 2:15:03 PM , Rating: 3
lol, masher2 , I believe he meant I ntelectual P roperty, not the IP address, in this case.
Think before you drink man.


RE: Oh they will get it soon
By masher2 (blog) on 7/5/2006 4:07:53 PM , Rating: 1
> "I believe he meant I ntelectual P roperty, not the IP address..."

I believe that, given IP addresses are sent via WGA, not Intellectual Property, and further given the syntax of his statement, "some of us have IPs of our own", his meaning was clear.


RE: Oh they will get it soon
By vingamm on 7/5/2006 4:54:07 PM , Rating: 2
You know I think Masher has a personal thing with me. I do not know why but he tries to correct everything I put on this board. I purposefully abbreviated that just to see if he would bite. Brainiac, I do know what an IP address is LOL.


RE: Oh they will get it soon
By vingamm on 7/5/2006 5:03:26 PM , Rating: 2
Oh and one last thing, If I had ever bought an OEM copy of XP then that might be an arguement but, I would love for you to show me in any part of the LA (licensing Agreement in case you take issue with that abbreviation) that says you can not upgrade your PC and you can not sell the PC and retain your software provided that you wipe the other hard drive first. M$ is licensed to the user not the hardware bozo unless you have applied for a per seat license. Next you will say you worked for M$ and you wrote part of the agreement.


RE: Oh they will get it soon
By masher2 (blog) on 7/5/2006 5:10:52 PM , Rating: 1
> "I do not know why but he tries to correct everything I put on this board..."

A desire for correctness and accuracy, primarily.

> "I purposefully abbreviated that just to see if he would bite..."

Nice try, but your phrasing was incorrect if you intended "IP" to mean intellectual property:

quote:
...I understand them wanting to protect there IPs...some of us work on sensitive material and have IPs of our own that we would rather keep private.


Given you pluralized "IP" in both cases, either you meant it as "IP address", or your skills in the English language are seriously lacking. I gave you the benefit of the doubt; was I wrong to do so?

Furthermore, coming from someone who develops intellectual property for a living, I think I can safely say that referring to it as simply "IP" in the context of a program that collects IP addresses, is ambigous and misleading enough to be judged incorrect in its own right, regardless of syntax.

Ah, but you just meant to fool me into responding, even though I had not yet responded to you once in this thread? I see...you think anyone will buy it?


RE: Oh they will get it soon
By masher2 (blog) on 7/5/2006 5:31:29 PM , Rating: 2
> "You know I think Masher has a personal thing with me..."

Interestingly enough, according to the forum log, the very first post you've made to this board was the one I corrected. So it seems obvious that, not only are you posting under multiple names, you're assuming I can telepathically connect them?



Please read - Both sides....
By Gelde3001 on 7/6/2006 12:12:51 AM , Rating: 2
Id like you ALL to stop and think about this for one moment - Had WGA been part of the launch of WinXP then who would have argued except the pirates ?.....

It is however being forced at the END of XP's lifecycle, and having an opt out tick on an auto update is NOT opt in, esp if you arent informed at all or made aware. Having to check it yourself and make a choice to deny it being downloaded or installed is lunacy.

This is a cheap stunt which is designed to boost revenues whilst vista is finished late and also will subtly force people to consider Vista if they "have" to now pay for another windows or pay at all depending on their circumstances (pirate / idiot). Also consider that it will be a given that vista will ship with a seriously beefed up WGA that will almost certainly cripple any pc found to be outside its checks.

Finally - do you not realise that once Vista ships the current XP WGA will be updated to bring the 30-day or less time limit into play - again to force a payment or more likely a purchase of a slightly discounted Vista Basic.

I have legal copies of my OS and dont want flames etc but please understand there are much larger corporate ideals at play here. The XP uptake was and still is (barring new pc's) quite low - as for the 99% of people use XP, not even half - the ammount of business users that HAVE to still run 9x systems is quite astounding - schools even - the actual usage of XP is more like 55-60% at the absolute maximum worldwide and Vista will only be less because it will really require a new pc to actually be of any use to most people at all. After all a flashy 3D interface that wont run on 85% of machines at present isnt going to sell well at retail. Do understand that Microsoft knows this all to well and have tried several tactics to perseude people onto the latest and greated - compatibility with games is a big point for me personally with the latest finally requiring XP due to 2 hex bits added to exe files.

Im only asking you to think outside the I dont personally mind - or I bloody well hate it camps......There is always more at play behind the scenes.

Id love XP or Vista to be free - but on this planet only life will ever be free in its existance.




RE: Please read - Both sides....
By bobdelt on 7/6/2006 6:57:06 AM , Rating: 2
Thank you captain obvious. But that doesn't change my opinion. And I think you highly underestimate how many people use XP. Most companies have better than a five year turnover rate on hardware and unless theyre using Linux, they will have xp on their machines.


RE: Please read - Both sides....
By Wonga on 7/6/2006 9:10:54 AM , Rating: 2
In the schools I have to go into, most PCs are on XP now and the few that are still running 98 are due to be ditched within a few months.

The XP uptake is MASSIVE, for the very reason you mentioned - it ships with new PCs. Only a small minority of people go and buy a retail version (for various reasons, such as "Don't need to" etc).

Yes, people might think about going and buying a copy of Windows now they've seen the WPA message, but don't you realise that 99% of people who see this message have a pirated copy of Windows (whether it was their doing or the dodgy company they bought it from)?


RE: Please read - Both sides....
By masher2 (blog) on 7/6/2006 10:31:54 AM , Rating: 1
> "but don't you realise that 99% of people who see this message have a pirated copy of Windows (whether it was their doing or the dodgy company they bought it from)?"

I think its rather more like 99.9 have either a pirated copy, compromised license key, or some other issue. But the people complaining against WGA are, by and large, the usual suspects who don't really believe in copyright law at all, the same people who account for the 50%+ of all Internet traffic in the way of P2P pirated music, video, and software.

In their minds, if they managed to get a copy of Windows activated and running on their PC-- its theirs. And any inconvenient little issues about illegal licensing should all be water under the bridge.



Who is masher2 anyway?
By kondor999 on 7/6/2006 11:07:45 PM , Rating: 1
I don't know who masher2 is, but he really does stick up for the end-user, doesn't he? I mean, his views are always so balanced!

Seriously, man, are you a cop or something? Or maybe a lawyer? Or a corporate sycophant? Or a Troll?

One thing's for sure -- you aren't getting laid enough. All that irritability and way too much time to argue with just about everyone here. My guess is that, in real life, you don't get a lot of respect.

Sorry.


RE: Who is masher2 anyway?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/7/2006 9:42:07 AM , Rating: 1
> "I don't know who masher2 is, but he really does stick up for the end-user..."

No, I'm "sticking up" for principles. Capitalism, freedom, and basic property rights. The principles the nation was founded upon. Why not try it yourself sometime?

> "Seriously, man, are you a cop or something? Or maybe a lawyer? Or a corporate sycophant? Or a Troll?"

Taking debate lessons from Joseph Goebbels, eh? I'm sure he would be proud.

> "One thing's for sure -- you aren't getting laid enough"

Invariably, I find people who make such statements are underpaid striplings who believe "great sex" consists of nightly donning beer googles to romance pasty-faced heifers at the local bar and grill.



RE: Who is masher2 anyway?
By gtnbuckeye on 7/7/2006 2:48:14 PM , Rating: 2
I love capitalism and free markets. Unfortunately, Microsoft operates from a monopoly position, and I question wether some of Microsofts business practices would survive a truly competitive market.

Yes, there are many competitors in the software industry, but the desktop OS and office suite markets are certainly not competitive. Who's Microsoft's next closest competitor? What's that competitor's market share? When one company has >95% of the market, I think the argument of competitive or not goes out the window.

When I buy a car, television, or refrigerator, I know who the various manufacturers are and I compare features that differentiate products to determine which product I'll buy. When buying software the reasoning most people use is "that's what we use at work", or "that's what I learned how to use", or "you mean there's something other than Microsoft?". Yes, you could classify as features the fact that "everyone else uses it" or that "I know how to use it", but those aren't clear proof that Microsoft builds a better mouse trap. Most people are clueless about who the competition even is, let alone what the feature differences are between competing products. So, software markets are dominated by customers and end users that purchase based on a lack of information, and a lack of education to understand that information. These are not the telltale signs of a "competitive market".

Notice that Microsoft has a smaller share of the market in server software, web servers, etc. Why? Is it a coincidence that those in a position to purchase and use this software are typically better informed and educated on the products and features (and therefore LESS likely to be afraid to "not buy Microsoft").

My question to you is: If the desktop OS (or office suite) market were truly competitive, would all of the "nonsense" (such as WGA) Microsoft imposes on it's customers continue?

I have installed other commercial operating systems (Linux, Netware) and office suites (Corel Office), and not had to deal with many of the nonsensical issues encountered in Microsofts software. (No "phone home", or license key to enter with any of these products, and I can install and uninstall as I deem necessary - no need to call India like I have to when Windows XP activation fails during a reinstall after replacing a failed hard drive. Heck, my old Corel Office suite allowed me to take my work software and install an additional copy of it on one home PC as part of the license agreement!) If Microsoft were not in a position of monopoly power on the desktop (as their competitors clearly are not), I think many of the these "restrictions" and other goofiness (WGA) would not exist. This would indicate that there is a potential "abuse" situation occuring that would not be possible in a competitive market.

I don't begrudge Microsoft the opportunity to climb to the top of their industry, nor the right to fight to stay there. But I don't like being taken advantage of, and in a capitalist economy a buyer surely has the right to have expectations of the seller. Usually, though, the buyer has a real option of choosing a different seller (which is the free market economy's built-in way of eliminating seller abuses). Since this is not a competitive market, the seller is trying to get away with some shenanigans, and the buyers only recourse is the mechanisms provided by government (either legislative/regulations, or judicial/lawsuites). Personally, I hate turning to the government to resolve problems - it usually means something in the system has already failed to work properly, and is now only going to get worse. ;-)

You can blindly respond "it's capitalism, it's capitalism" all you want, but it's capitalism operating in a "broken" fashion. The beauty of capitalism is that it is so darned efficient at automatically allocating resources through the balancing of supply and demand...as long as everything is "working right" (i.e.- no monopolies or other dominating market power scenarios). The drawback then is that under monopolistic conditions (which fortunately only appear periodically, and in narrow market segments) capitalism can experience some of the same basic inefficiencies of a totilitarian socio-economic system (communism or facism, either one will fit), where the "seller" gets to dictate all terms to the "buyer".


RE: Who is masher2 anyway?
By ttowntom on 7/8/2006 11:29:36 AM , Rating: 2
My question to you is: If the desktop OS (or office suite) market were truly competitive, would all of the "nonsense" (such as WGA) Microsoft imposes on it's customers continue?

Easy answer-- yes, of course it would. I've used a few software packages (in markets with far more active competitors than desktop OSes) that are enormously more restrictive than WGA. Products which "phone home" every time you try to use them...and which, if they fail to obtain a valid key, shut down fully.

> Notice that Microsoft has a smaller share of the market in server software, web servers, etc. Why? "

Another easy answer. Because Microsoft began as a desktop OS. Its entry into the server market is relatively late.

Another important factor is that standardization is less critical in the server arena. Most servers are dedicated to one or two applications. As long as you have those applications working on your OS, you don't much care about interoperability, available of other software, or any other factors.

Is it a coincidence that those in a position to purchase and use this software are typically better informed and educated on the products and features (and therefore LESS likely to be afraid to "not buy Microsoft").



RE: Who is masher2 anyway?
By gtnbuckeye on 7/11/2006 10:58:04 AM , Rating: 2
My question to you is: If the desktop OS (or office suite) market were truly competitive, would all of the "nonsense" (such as WGA) Microsoft imposes on it's customers continue?

quote:
Easy answer-- yes, of course it would. I've used a few software packages (in markets with far more active competitors than desktop OSes) that are enormously more restrictive than WGA. Products which "phone home" every time you try to use them...and which, if they fail to obtain a valid key, shut down fully.


I have used such products also (CAD, statistics and analysis programs, industry specific tools, etc.), but nothing that would typically be used outside a business setting. This is less digestable because it is happening with "consumer" products - home users are far less tolerable of this than corporate users. (Hey, that's MY computer and data were talking about now!) Also, since those non-consumer product catagories are such low volume, compared to desktop OS and office suites, any piracy is more damaging to the bottom line, and the desire for more "harassing" measures to stop piracy are understandable (although still not acceptable) to me. The only other apps I've used with these "features" are security related (anti-virus, etc.) which by design have to phone somewhere to even be useful.

Notice that Microsoft has a smaller share of the market in server software, web servers, etc. Why?

Is it a coincidence that those in a position to purchase and use this software are typically better informed and educated on the products and features (and therefore LESS likely to be afraid to "not buy Microsoft").


quote:
Another easy answer. Because Microsoft began as a desktop OS. Its entry into the server market is relatively late.

Another important factor is that standardization is less critical in the server arena. Most servers are dedicated to one or two applications. As long as you have those applications working on your OS, you don't much care about interoperability, available of other software, or any other factors.


Was this part of your argument meant to somehow rebut my primary argument? It doesn't seem to attack either my statement that the desktop OS (and office suite) markets are not truly competitive, nor that "abuses" (in my view, as well as others it seems) such as WGA are enabled by, and continue due to, Microsoft's monopoly position in these areas. In fact, your statement seems to be an attempt to answer a rhetorical question that I posed simply to show a relavent contrast between desktop and server segments, which I introduced solely for the purpose of demonstrating one of the reasons I feel the "desktop OS market is not competitive". Since Microsofts position in the server market doesn't allow them to "abuse" the buyer (as much), I don't care why Microsoft's share in that market is what it is. I find it odd that you read my post, and felt that was worth arguing over...

(Having said that, I'd hardly call your answer an "easy answer" anyway. Windows server OS isn't that much later than some of it's current competitors, and being late certainly hasn't hurt it against such products as OS2, Vines, NetWare, and MacOS server - many of which were at one time better established, or better funded, and better products than Microsofts offerings. AND - that still doesn't preclude the likelihood that "fear of the unknown" is less a factor in server software purchasing than desktop software purchasing, due to knowledge on the part of the end users and product purchasers. Which goes back to supporting my original argument: The desktop market is uncompetitive, and because of that the sellers have an opportunity to take advantage of the buyers!)


RE: Who is masher2 anyway?
By kondor999 on 7/7/06, Rating: 0
RE: Who is masher2 anyway?
By ttowntom on 7/8/2006 11:21:53 AM , Rating: 2
> "PS - What was that Goebbels remark about?"

Quite simple. In your prior post as well as this one, as well) you refused wholly to debate the issue itself, and instead resorted to the standard propagandist tools of argumentum ad naseum, begging the question, and, most of all, ad hominem attacks. Techniques popularized by the master of propaganda himself -- J. Goebbels.

As interested as you may believe Dailytech readers are in your "hot wife" and kindergarten-level taunts, this is a web forum for discussion of technology and the issues surrounding it. Rather than embarrassing yourself further, why not attempt using the board for its intended purpose? Honestly, its not as difficult as it seems.


Keep them coming
By Araxen on 7/5/2006 10:22:31 AM , Rating: 2
Just keep the lawsuits rolling in.




RE: Keep them coming
By Vertigo101 on 7/5/2006 10:25:22 AM , Rating: 1
I just hope they're not asking for outrageous damages, and just want WGA to be discontinued. Frivilous lawsuits on a legitimate problem just make the plaintiffs look bad.


RE: Keep them coming
By smokenjoe on 7/5/2006 11:02:38 AM , Rating: 4
Frivilous? We are talking about our privacey and in turn our safty. Thgey cant be doing it for mony- at least not the people to much time and effort to ever make it worthwile for that. Even if they did ask for insane mony microsoft would not wince. Look at the 2 million a day fines that is not enough to make them comply with the EU anti monopoly regs.


RE: Keep them coming
By masher2 (blog) on 7/5/06, Rating: -1
RE: Keep them coming
By Vertigo101 on 7/5/2006 1:17:54 PM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure that I implied that I was hoping they don't make it frivolous, not that it currently is.

I'm a strong advocate for our right to privacy, and suing for a large amout of money, instead of dealing with the issue at hand, only makes the plaitiffs look like opportunists, instead of being genuinely concerned.


RE: Keep them coming
By rqle on 7/5/2006 1:57:34 PM , Rating: 1
Understandable that it may be right to eliminate WGA because of false positive. But i dont understand the big complaint on Windows being overprice.

Been using XP for 4 years now, that about less then a penny a hour? or 1 peny a hour if am using it for 7 hours/day?
Planning to used it for another 2 year as well. Cost me more just to start my car =).


RE: Keep them coming
By tuteja1986 on 7/5/2006 10:38:08 PM , Rating: 2
Ahh, I think microsoft can't do anything without getting sued.


RE: Keep them coming
By goku on 7/5/2006 11:37:49 PM , Rating: 1
Too bad, they not only got deep pockets but this whole WGA thing is fscking ridiculous, screw MS.


Whats the big deal?
By bobdelt on 7/5/2006 3:18:00 PM , Rating: 2
What information is actually sent to MS?

2nd: I think Microsoft is being nice. They are offering a discounted copy of Windows for people who stole their software. 100 Dollars for Windows isn't too much to ask. I think Microsoft should have every right to disable their software on your computer if you stole it. People act like its their right to have a free o\s.




RE: Whats the big deal?
By Wonga on 7/5/2006 3:26:54 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you.

The price of XP is very reasonable and was just as reasonable when it was first released - I should know, I bought it. Five years of constant use with updates being supplied all that time? Pretty good deal if you ask me.

Microsoft is letting pirates get away easy here, so I don't see what the fuss is. Windows is telling you your software is pirated? It is pirated? Oh diddums.


RE: Whats the big deal?
By namechamps on 7/6/2006 12:17:52 AM , Rating: 2
Only one problem. The suit is form people who legally bought windows yet were advised by WPA that they are a pirate.

How about I shut down your copy of windows and give the generous offer to pay $100 to turn it back on. Maybe that will change your attitude. The point is Microsoft was careless and stupid. They didn't test WPA very well nor did they beta it. The number of wrongly affected computers could # in the millions.

As a result those paying customers have lost the ability to update windows and protect themselves from critical flaws in the product. So a lawsuit is justified. Hopefully microsoft gets hit with $10-$20 million, pulls WPA and thinks of something less like spyware to fix this "issue".


RE: Whats the big deal?
By Wonga on 7/6/2006 9:05:01 AM , Rating: 2
I think the number of affected machines will be CONSIDERABLY less than the millions you reported.

Anyway, Microsoft isn't "shutting down" anyones PCs. They're just advising them their copy man be counterfeit.

Now I'm not going to deny that any wrong diagnosis by WPA will be a hassle to cure, but I think these problems will be in a vast minority and a phone call will sort it.


RE: Whats the big deal?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/6/2006 10:25:14 AM , Rating: 2
> "The suit is form people who legally bought windows yet were advised by WPA that they are a pirate..."

Incorrect. No one was advised they "were a pirate". Furthermore, it remains to be seen whether or not the copies in question are indeed legally licensed.

> The number of wrongly affected computers could # in the millions...

I seriously doubt the number of wrongly affected machines numbers even 1% of that amount. So far the only reports are from either a) people with OEM copies who don't understand OEM licensing, or b) people who believe Microsoft is the devil incarnate, and thus have plenty of motivation to post false reports to websites and forums.


WGA -> no OS computer OK?
By Kuroyama on 7/5/2006 12:03:22 PM , Rating: 2
Couldn't this be a blessing in disguise? Doesn't Microsoft bludgeons computer makers into including Windows on all their computers by claiming that computers sold without an OS will end up with a pirated copy of Windows installed? If the WGA software were to work properly then that would obliterate their argument, and perhaps those of us who don't want Windows could save a bit of money by buying a computer without an OS installed (I build my computers, but not everyone wants to do that).




RE: WGA -> no OS computer OK?
By INeedCache on 7/5/2006 1:17:42 PM , Rating: 2
Not getting involved in the WGA discussion here, but honestly, what percentage of people out there do you think want to buy a computer without an OS? In almost ten years of business, we have never had a customer who wanted a new computer without an OS. And, we have tried to sell Linux as a cheaper alternative, and in every case but one, people wanted Windows. Sorry, but in business, the majority most definitely rules.


RE: WGA -> no OS computer OK?
By namechamps on 7/6/2006 12:11:21 AM , Rating: 2
Um how about this:

I bought windows XP when it came out. I bought it retail and that gives me the right to transfer it to as many computers as I want (as long as it is only activated on one).

However today if I were to buy a computer from Dell or You I would pay the windows Tax. $50-$70 is added to the cost of the computer for a copy of windows I dont want or need. Multiple that times millions of computers and that is a great deal for Microsoft but a horrible one for consumers.

You want to keep rebuying the same product over and over go ahead but count be out. I have built my own systems and upgraded systems over the years but I refused to buy a prebuilt system for the exact reason that you in your infinite wisdom believe I should be happy to rebuy something I already bought.

The fact that your customers are too stupid or more likely too dupped my Microsoft to realize they have right to transfer the licencse from their dead PC to their new one and avoid the windows tax is part of the problem.


WGA and support costs
By Targon on 7/5/2006 3:51:27 PM , Rating: 2
What I want to see are the lawsuits from people who have had to spend time and money to deal with WGA incorrectly flagging a copy of Windows as not being genuine, even when it is. I am currently in the middle of a problem where a customer of mine(who isn't technical) has had her legal copy of Windows XP flagged as not being genuine, even when we have the original box(retail Windows XP Home upgrade) and CD key.




RE: WGA and support costs
By masher2 (blog) on 7/5/2006 4:13:49 PM , Rating: 2
> "even when we have the original box(retail Windows XP Home upgrade) and CD key."

Perhaps that "original box" is a pirated version. Or perhaps he's given that CD key to a friend, who gave it out on a web forum to a few hundred other people. Or perhaps the upgrade was from an unlicensed previous copy...an upgrade copy of Windows isn't a full copy. Or perhaps any one of a dozen other reasons...I'm sure its being flagged for a reason.


RE: WGA and support costs
By mindless1 on 7/6/2006 3:07:24 AM , Rating: 1
or perhaps you're the only one trying to pervert the truth without evidence, only because you pretend to be above others and have no real justification for it so instead always try to make up nonsense.


meanwhile...
By saechaka on 7/5/2006 11:02:17 AM , Rating: 2
the administration continues to listen to your every word...




Keep them coming to papa
By iamverycrazy on 7/5/2006 11:26:50 AM , Rating: 2
no wonder Mr. Bill Gates is retiring and Microsoft executives are leaving Microsoft for Googles.


Oh please...
By Enron on 7/5/2006 11:01:42 AM , Rating: 2
Hopefully we will see a lot more of these law suits, and this will be the reason for the down fall of WGA. There are rumors that soon will have the ability of shutdown or expire your version of windows in 30 days.




By MonkeyPaw on 7/5/2006 2:08:31 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't WGA a critical update because it grants you access to all the other critical updates? Without WGA, you can't use Windows Update, right? If so, then how is MS being misleading by calling WGA a critical update? Sure, MS could make updates available without using WGA, but they decided otherwise, so now it is necessary.




"It looks like the iPhone 4 might be their Vista, and I'm okay with that." -- Microsoft COO Kevin Turner

Related Articles
Microsoft Sued Over WGA
June 30, 2006, 11:33 AM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki