Isn't this all rather silly? RRS feed

  • General discussion

  • This seems so silly to me if you purchase something shouldn't you be able to use it? Just because there are people out there who are thieves doesn't mean we all should be punished for that. Makes me wonder where it will all end some one will I am sure find a way to make an program that doesn't require all this sillyness to keep it from being pirated and such. untill then I guess we all will have to live with it. But shame on you for trying to defend it like it's a necessary thing. All the moderators comments I have read are all the same bascially like the one post reads just a way for you blokes to make more money well then fine I guess we shall have to live with that for a reality but shame on you all for defending it.
    Thursday, May 25, 2006 12:28 AM

All replies

  • Dear Ellie,

    Nobody stops you from using windows. If you have an illegal or cracked version of windows, just don't install the GA tool or stop using windows update and you will be fine.

    I wouldn't use windows update with a cracked version anyway as it could give you unexpected results. (It assumes unmodified files for doing any upgrade / patching operations - once you mess with it patching can break it.) In this sense its actually not silly to stop people from using Windows Update as it can destroy your (pirated) Operating System.

    If you have a legal version but somebody has installed a cracked one over it now is a good time to resolve this. Always hold on to your original disc with the bar code!


    Thursday, May 25, 2006 12:15 PM
  • Hi

    I agree with Ellie completely.

    Plus, it is all very well saying don't use Windows Updates, but I had no clue that this was going to happen.  NOw I have stupid messages popping up all over the place.

    Can I get rid of them if I switch off updates?



    Thursday, May 25, 2006 8:19 PM
  • ok. What i have to say is.

    Ellie is right,

    I, went into PC World today, and yet, Windows Pro is like £260 AND THEY WONDER WHY people have cracked versions, no one in the right mind would just pay for something like this. Sorry Microsoft but your prices are way out of order for some things.

    You should be making the prices a lot more lower than it is in shops. And perhaps people will NOT thief from you.


    Friday, June 2, 2006 3:58 PM
  • The price is the price. Microsoft is a business, and it is entitled to charge what the traffic will bear. The cost of an operating system does not justify using a pirated version.

    But that's not the point.

    WGA is spyware, plain and simple, by Microsoft's own definition of "what is spyware." For that reason, I submitted my copy of wgatray.exe to the Windows Defender team as a "false negative."

    I have cut it off from phoning home to Uncle Bill--the irony being that it is the Windows OneCare firewall that is stopping it--but that's because it seems to feel the need to load and connect at every start up.

    How many times do I need to prove to Microsoft that I am not a thief?

    I am terribly disappointed at some of the comments I've read here, on both sides. As I said, there is no justification for piracy. But there is also no justification for blowing off legitimate (what Microsoft keeps calling "genuine," which just grates on my nerves) users who are voicing concerns about the implementation and use of WGA.

    The following is a distillation of my comments in two threads in the windowsxp.general newsgroup:

    I paid for my software, and I shouldn't have to keep proving that I did long after the purchase. No other vendor--of any kind--makes me do that, and I don't see why Microsoft should have the right to make me dance on a string because I use its product.

    Microsoft has the corner on the market in the community of which I am reluctantly a part. Although I do have a choice about what I use at home, it's inconvenient to be on a different platform.

    I use Microsoft's product, just like any other product, because it does what I need it to do. Some of the time, anyway.

    If Microsoft were a pharmaceutical company, a cosmetic company, a large manufacturer of consumer goods, or an automobile manufacturer, trust would not be the issue we're discussing. Full disclosure is required, and in the absence of full disclosure, I would have the basis of a lawsuit. These companies are required to let me, the consumer, know what their product will do and what it don't do. And if the product fails to work as represented by the company, I can sue, and I will probably prevail. Read a cosmetic label sometime, and see the way they dance around the claims--because they are bound by the claims they make. Most labeling doesn't really have a whole lot of content, so one does need to read and comprehend what the actual claims for the product are--but the claims and disclosures must be made to the consumer. It's the law.

    You'd best believe that if I had to dance around like this to use a tube of mascara, I would find an alternative, or I'd give up mascara. It's not as easy to get a different operating system or give up computers entirely.

    What if you had to call Makita every time you wanted to use its radial arm saw? What if you had to call Detroit (or Japan or some other country) every time you wanted to go to the store? What are you going to do when your boxer shorts start phoning home to Fruit of the Loom?

    I'll tell you...I always knew skydiving could kill me, because both my rig and my canopy said so, in big bold black letters on an bright orange label. The gear manufacturers also say, very plainly, that the gear can fail for no reason. Skydiving gear is always in beta, but what you don't seem to take into account is that even when Microsoft says it's not beta, it is. It's never "the final product" because there's always something else Microsoft needs to do, but that's never what we're told, and then we have to deal with the consequences.

    If there is to be trust of any kind, it exists in a climate of full disclosure. I don't see that. In the meantime, I've got that stupid little WGA thingie doing the same thing each time I boot up, and I want to know why it needs to check up on me all the time. Not once, but every time I reboot the computer.

    The fact that Microsoft has forced me to install on my computer a file that I neither want nor need is both a Windows XP issue and an issue of ethics.

    One-sided business practices are unethical. Misleading ones customer base is unethical. Compelling me to prove over and over again that my copy of Windows isn't bootleg is worse than unethical. It's unconscionable.

    Just because the spyware comes from a known company doesn't make it okay for that company to put spyware on my computer. Other spyware makers infiltrate for the same reason--personal gain. That's what WGA is all about. And this particular bit of spyware seems to be causing as much trouble for some people as any other, based on the posts here and elsewhere.

    There are a lot of compromises in life, but after this computer dies, I'm quite likely to go back to a Mac. Although I first found maintaining it (and learning new things) to be entertaining, it is starting to wear on me. Except for a few limited instances, I've never had to deal with Windows outside a professional environment, and I never had any idea what a pain in the touchis it is to keep it running well.

    It's not supposed to be this hard. Computers were supposed to give us more leisure time, but instead they've taken over our lives.

    When I first started working as a paralegal, a lot was still being done on typewriters. For the most part, it was a 9 to 5 day, except for all the extra time I spent getting acquainted with the brand new Xerox 820-II.

    Now we have very zippy computers with many time-saving programs, and most of us start the day at 7 am and end at midnight.

    Okay, I'm exaggerating...but not very much.

    This is all very confusing and frustrating to me, because I have long admired Bill Gates--i.e., "geek makes good"--but I've reach the point where if I had the time, I'd be organizing a public demonstration outside his window.

    Rhonda Lea Kirk
    Saturday, June 3, 2006 7:04 AM