In the ideal world, this would be true. Businesses should trust its customers. However, there is the real world in which humankind is untrustworthy, deceptive, and deceitful. Yes, I'm rather jaded when it comes to H. Sapiens but unfortunately, that's how I see us. I don't know if the execs at MS are just as jaded as I am but they know that people will steal and it is necessary for them to curtail as much of that stealing as possible. Are MS's methods the best? No, but it's all they have right now, unless some bloke comes up with an effective means of a) not requiring activation and b) stopping pirated software.

Here, you imply that MS is stealing private and confidential information, when...you have no proof of that.



As long as you're not frequently changing the hard drive on which Windows is installed, nor swapping out motherboards, this doesn't happen.



Debian could release an update that locks the root account and disables all your accounts! Will it happen? No. But it can!



An unsubstantiated guess, at that.



Even if they force you to send those details, nothing prevents you from entering that your name is "asdfd dfsasd".



You're right, it's not hard to imagine that. Do you have any proof to substantiate that they are?



To my knowledge, your MAC address isn't included in an implicitly included in an IP packet. It's possible that Microsoft includes it as part of the body of the packet, but, again, mere speculation.



I never said that this functionality was included in Vista.



Additional unsubstantiated claims. It's possible that currently virtual machine packages don't support Vista yet, but I've not heard of anything in the EULA that prohibits the use of a valid copy of Vista being used in a VM.

Wolfy you will find countless examples of each and every thing I typed if you just do some research on Google. When I wasn't sure about something, or when I couldn't remember the exact source, I prefaced my comment with things like, "from my recollection" or "in my understanding" or "it's just a guess" - prefaces that are an invitation for someone to provide a correction (which nobody has done). Look for "xp activation problems" on google. There are tons of columns on tech sites about the license problems with Vista and virtual machines. A quick search on google will help you learn something about it. There are also tons of articles examining exactly what information gets sent when you activate (including MAC address, hardware inventory, etc.). There are more articles about how MS is intentionally not being more transparent about the process. There are thousands of pages of people having problems and spending hours on the phone because MS accidentally mixed up their Windows and Office licenses and were denying people activation based on that. Just going up in memory can trigger Activation to be required. Please remember that just because it didn't happen to you doesn't mean it doesn't happen to other people. There is so much information out there on this subject that I simply cannot believe you are arguing some of the points you are arguing. There are articles that discuss the exact things that are sent to MS and which of those can trigger activation and how many times you have to change the things in order to trigger it. There are articles about items that are dockable vs. undockable and how those affect (laptops are less likely to require reactivation after hardware changes).

You keep hammering me on unsupported claims, but you haven't cited anything either. Except your own experience. Which I've also cited (but was immediately dismissed out of hand as a vmware problem and not a windows problem - which is an interesting theory).

Debian absolutely cannot lock me out of my system arbitrarily, even if they put a package on there that does that, there's nothing forcing me to update and get said package - whereas activation is there by default when you install the operating system.

Nothing prevents me from providing bogus data... except the license agreement. I prefer not to have to break "agreements" just to keep my personal information out of a company's database. Clearly apple doesn't view the registration step as optional (or there would be a button to skip it).

We're on an internet discussion board. I was trying to have a conversation about things like product activation and registration. Up until a few days ago when I installed VMware and XP, I had never used XP (which I also mentioned). Every single solitary thing I've said about activation on XP (and steam) is stuff I'm repeating that I read on the internet. Each and every thing is verifiable if you just do a search. I guess I should start drafting my message board posts more as research papers and start citing each and every web site I've ever visited about the subject. But, we all know that wouldn't help even a little bit, because, after all, it "works for you" and you can't possibly see a company as respectful and resourceful as microsoft, valve, or apple as ever doing anything illegal or unethical, so no matter how many sources I cite or experiences I document (such as the problems with VMWare) or lawsuits they lose.

Conversely, I cannot foresee myself being comfortable allowing a company to remotely control the products I buy from them, hence, I refuse to buy them. It's really that simple. Regardless of how likely it is (which is 100% likely if you plan to use XP for longer than 30 days).

I understand that they feel they are losing some small percentage of revenue due to piracy (a larger percentage if you count non-US countries). I still don't think their solution is a good one. The only way to really prevent piracy is a full subscription model (like an MMORPG). I understand that you don't find their method too obtrusive (how about steam where many, many people have reported an inability to play due to bugs in "offline mode" - is that still an acceptable measure?), but in fact I do find it too obtrusive so I choose not to use their products. It's really nice that we have a choice, isn't it?

let's not forget the numerous false positives that MS issues. many non-techies don't understand or can't figure out why MS says they have stolen software when they just bought the disc.

i had to call and read out the numbers to get my legal copy of xp registered or they'd shut my OS down after 30 days. it was easy and quick but still...

Debian absolutely could. You're assuming that you'll always have a debian system to run off of that doesn't have that control software.

What if you were installing fresh? They could easily throw that in as a dependency or even embed it inside APT or the kernel or anything else.

Microsoft could instantly render everyones' copies of windows invalid. They won't, though, because that would be stupid.

A. If activation was such a huge ordeal, a security issue, or even as buggy as you make it out to be, it wouldn't exist. It'd be cost prohibitive for Microsoft to keep the system going.
B. I'm still wondering how you can send a hardware readout as a string of 35 characters, including mac address, over the phone.
C. You say you don't want Microsoft controlling your license of your software. So how would you suggest they stop people from stealing their software?

It's like telling a car rental company that they shouldn't require down payments or other ways of covering the cost of the car, because they're treating you like a criminal or a reckless driver.

You may not like it, and it may not be the perfect solution, but this is not fantasy land. Criminals do exist, and Microsoft is going with the proactive approach to stopping theft of their software.

I don't think it's the best thing ever, but I understand why it is necessary in this day and age, and I am not bothered by it.

*shrug* I don't see anything bad about product activation. As long as people are going to steal Windows I think they have every right to try to protect themselves.

CM: I may not like it, and I choose not to use it. It's as simple as that.

Debian is a whole other beast. Debian is run by a bunch of volunteers, and every package is peer-reviewed in a thorough testing process before it is put in a stable or even testing branch. It's possible that someone could TRY to put malicous code into Debian, but it would be caught and dealt with before it ever makes it to testing or stable. It would be impossible to get something like that installed by default. You'd have to manually look up and install the package. Even if it wasn't, as soon as it affected even one person and they reported it, there would be fixes released. Everything in Debian is transparent, and there is a lot of power in that for the end-user.

You're mixing up the point - you're saying Debian could do something at some point in the future, I'm contending that MS is doing it now. Evad, yet another person on this board of less than a couple hundred active people affected by it.

I don't understand how come you want me to have compassion for a company as if they were some person. I have no vested interest in seeing them stay alive as a company, I don't care either way (actually if I had the choice I would probably rather see them go out of business). They have been found guilty in many countries of fraud, patent infringement, illegal business practices, illegally underpaying and underreporting workers, etc. The world would not be lost w/out microsoft (or valve, or apple), trust me. This is a free country, they are free to try to fight piracy any /legal/ way they want, I simply don't care. But I am also free to not use their software, and that is the only thing I've ever said I'm going to do about it. What is it that you guys want me to say to put this thing to rest? That's it's okay for them to do it? I never said otherwise! I only said that I didn't agree with it and therefore I wasn't going to purchase anymore of their software.

I never said there weren't activation problems.



http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/wpa.php

"It then calculates and records a number based on the first device of each type that was found during setup, and stores this number on your hard drive. Initially, this is sent to Microsoft in an automatic dial-up, together with the Product ID number derived from the 25-character unique Product Key used in setting up Windows.

[...]

* WPA does not send any personal information at all about you to Microsoft. There is still an option to register the product with Microsoft, but that is separate and entirely voluntary.
* If you have to phone in yourself to carry out an activation or reactivation, you are not required to give any identifying personal information.
* WPA does not ‘phone in’ every day to check. The check that the system is not significantly different is done by Windows itself at boot. If the hardware is not acceptable (i.e., you don’t get your seven Yes votes), you have to initiate the telephone call yourself in order to reactivate. Windows itself never calls Microsoft except when you specifically tell it to do so for an online activation.
* WPA does not provide a means for Microsoft to turn off your machine or damage your data. (Nor do they even have access to your data.) If the system is requiring you to phone in, you will still be able to boot to Safe Mode and back up your data.
* WPA is not a “lease” system requiring more payments after two years or any other period. You may use the product as licensed in perpetuity."

Other articles can be found here:

http://www.google.com/search?q=information+gets+sent+windows+xp+activation&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a



I'm not sure exactly how to find evidence that something doesn't happen.



The "you won't listen to me even if I actually do substantiate my claims" argument is, in itself, an unsubstantiated claim. I find this ironic. But God forbid should you have to provide evidence that support your claims instead of being able to be held unaccountable for said claims.



But...they don't remotely control your computer or the software you use.



Contending what? That MS is actively plotting to lock us out of our computers while simultaneously collecting, indexing, and selling our personal information?

Fair enough. This is a free nation and we can chose our own software to our liking.

ha.

Wolfy since you can't seem to grasp these things as we post multiple subjects per message, how about we take it one at a time, eh? Once we get one settled, we can move on to the next one.

Let's start here:

Isn't it true that if you do not do what microsoft wants (activate via internet or phone) you get locked out of your computer?

okay I'll try my hand at it.



Systems manufactured by major OEMs (Acer, Alienware, ASUS, Compaq, Dell, eMachines, Gateway, HP, Lenovo, Toshiba, etc.) include an OEM identification string and serial number burned onto unflashable ROM at the start of the BIOS. When you install an OEM version of Windows it checks the OEM ID and automatically activates/validates the install without requiring an internet connection.

Microsoft has absolutely no way of "locking" these users out of their computers. And, in spite of what you might think, the overwhelming majority of people who own home computers own a machine from a major manufacturer. From what I've heard almost all of the "false positives" in WGA come from hole in the wall system manufacturers who use a single drive image for every system.


As for the "moral debate", it is a non-issue and it is ridiculous to try to make it one. Product activation is a term of the EULA. If you are uncomfortable with the terms of a contract then you shouldn't enter into it. Nobody's forcing you to use Windows, and there is a refund clause in the EULA (which means even preinstalls can be refunded if you don't agree to the terms of the EULA).

In the case of homebuilt computers or systems from smaller companies, yes, it's true that if you don't "do what Microsoft wants" you get "locked out of your computer". Because the minute you refuse to activate windows you are in violation of the EULA which means your windows license isn't actually valid. The fact that nobody has sued Microsoft over this is a pretty clear sign that this argument is pointless and worthless and oh god please stop talking about it and go back to bsd. please.

I built a computer 5 years ago and bought an OEM copy of XP Pro with it. Since the first activation after install I have:
- Installed new CD Writer
- Installed new Hard Disk
- Installed new Graphics Card
- Installed Wireless network card
Then I:
- Bought a new motherboard
- Bought a new processor
- Bought a new hard disk
- Bought a new graphics card
- Bought brand new RAM
- Put the same installed hard disk into this effectively new machine.
At this point I was asked to activate over the internet within 30 days. Since then my power supply had a shorted connection and killed two hard disks (not the windows one) and the motherboard. So:
- I replaced one of the hard disks
- I replaced the motherboard
- At the same time I got a new wireless card

I've yet to be asked to activate again. So after all these changes i've only had to reactivate once and never by phone, and this is with an OEM license.

This thread is amazing.

^^ What they said.

Wolfy, what jon said is in fact that they do lock you out of your computer if you don't activate and if you are uncomfortable with this don't buy Windows. Which is exactly what I've been saying from the beginning.

...as well as stating suspicions that they're sending private information with each activation, as well as stating that companies can "remotely control the products I buy from them".

I never said that people should buy Windows XP, or that you should, nor have I said that Steam's or Microsoft's validation is perfect. I've simply called into question your claims that Microsoft is secretly collecting personal information about you through their activation methods (they don't) as well as challenged your claim that Microsoft is out to remotely control your computer (they're not). If you fail to meet the terms of a EULA you agreed to (and Microsoft makes no secret of the consequences of failing to meet those requirements), then...tough luck?

It should be called Windows Deactivation, and I guess technically, it's not "remote" controlled (although with WGA that may be a different story), but it's still a form of control I'm not comfortable with.

There's no secret about what they send (if you do research), although MS hasn't been transparent about it at all. Here is the result of a study of exactly what is being detected, hashed, and sent:

http://www.licenturion.com/xp/fully-licensed-wpa.txt

(the link may help explain how much information can be encoded in the number you have to read them over the phone)

Hell, in my opinion *any* information about me that I don't explicitly share with them on purpose is "personal" - this information includes the frequency of which I upgrade my hardware (and thus trigger activation). That alone is enough to get me not to buy their software. I understand why you would feel that this is not personal information, but from my point of view, it's non of their business (although they are clearly trying to make it their business).

Plus, I didn't agree to any of their license terms, which is why I don't have their software installed on any of my computers (any computers that *I* own, as I mentioned previously, I did install it on VMWare at work [but haven't activated yet so I get constant nag messages]).

I think Microsoft would *love* to have more control over your computer (even remote control) - like Steam has with their service. MS has expressed interest in the software-as-a-service system many, many times in the past. They introduced volume licensing [for businesses and government agencies] that required yearly payments apart from support contracts, but companies wouldn't stand for it so they have been phasing it out (if it's not dead already). Whether their intentions are honorable (just trying to prevent piracy) or not is not provable in any case, but from their history as a company I choose not to trust them as a company.

It really all comes down to this: I like to do business with companies I trust, and MS, Valve, and Apple aren't among them. They used to be, and I have paid money for their software in the past, but I probably won't in the future (unless something dramatic changes).

This is another interesting link, especially the very bottom question:

http://www.licenturion.com/xp/fully-licensed-faq.txt

You know, I like brian, except for when he's in soapbox mode.

I read all of the posts and all of the reasoning... and it just comes off as sort of tinfoil hat-ish.

God forbid microsoft actually wants you to prove that you paid for their operating system.

I just want to expand on this especially given the last few posts. Your point is very valid but it goes the other way too.

MS doesn't trust it's customers as in the past they have pirated software, so they implement some checks (which appear to be increasing in number). Conversely, lots of people don't trust MS for various reasons. Given their overall track record and my experiences with Windows, I don't really think MS can deliver something that I'd want to use. Like Brian I would prefer to buy stuff from companies that I trust. I'm aware activation isn't that bad, but I disagree with it on principle, hence I don't use their stuff (there are other reasons as well). No skin off my nose or anyone else's.

I don't need Windows for what I like to do, hence I'm not interested in buying it, but MS wants my money. Fair enough, it's a business, that's what they do. It's a "risk" for me to buy Windows as I'll get along fine without it.

So to get my money MS needs to convince me that I would be better off with Windows than I would be with Linux. So far their spiel to me is: "Pay $xyz dollars. Then prove you paid for it. Then we'll let you use your software and hardware. Oh and we reserve the right to ask you again to prove you bought it at a later date."

Sorry champs, why should I pay for your software, which hasn't performed up to scratch in the past, only to have the privilege of being assumed to be a pirate? They don't trust me and their check is activation. I don't trust them and my check is closing my wallet. Welcome to capitalism I vote with my dollars. If they want my money, they're going to have trust me. I'm doing them a favour by buying their stuff, so I expect not to be treated like a crook. If that doesn't bother people that's fine with me, but I'd prefer to support a company that produces a decent product and treats me like a valued customer.

On a related note, I'm not too concerned about activation and my privacy, but I am worried about the escalating number of checks involved. Once you agree to a few then it becomes easier to push more. For example, with the old games on floppy disks, the first line in the manual was a direction to make a copy of your disks. Skip ahead a few years and now the copy protection on some CDs can sometimes prevent you playing the game altogether or damage your hardware (aka Starforce).