Mon, Aug 27 2007 18:47
Explain WGA to a non techy
I dare ya.
Explain to a non techy the concepts of WGA, Validation, KMS, MAK keys.
I'll wait while you think about it.......
Read David Scrag's Office 2007 licensing post while you think about how you'd explain to someone the concept of Validation and WGA.
Okay now that you think about how you'd explain the concept of validation, WGA, having certain patches only behind behind WGA gated downloads....throw in a dash of this weekend and what do you get?
Windows Genuine Advantage : Update on Validation Issues:
This isn't FUD anymore about WGA causing issues to folks when merely going to a web page to download an optional patch that asked for validation would throw a machine into a state where it would indicate the system was non genuine. And the discussion is great for the "alternative OS to Microsoft" folks, because it plays right into the arguments against WGA. That it can someday brand you as non genuine and take away a working system. The desktop message wasn't just that the validation failed. The desktop message said that I was not genuine and suggested ways I could get genuine.
To quote someone else... 'Bah, to paraphrase some dead geezer: a server failure on your part should not constitute an emergency on my part.'
I understand the issues on piracy. I understand that as a business Microsoft needs to protect their intellectual property. But when it's easier for the pirates to get software, and you have innocent people just trying to use a computer that get caught in your server problem, there's a problem.
Adding a stick of ram shouldn't kick a problem, but apparently it does.
Read this thread....David said it best....
I realize Microsoft wants to protects it assets, and it should have the freedom to do it, but WGA goes way over the edge. There is a valid reason why Mac OS, Unix, Linux, and other OS's dont have something like WGA.
I like Vista. I like it's security. I like the additional group policy features it brings to the table. UAC doesn't annoy me. But customers aren't buying "Software as a service" when they buy Vista. Things should just work without impact from a Microsoft server problem. Most of the time in computing there's a FUD element to the arguments. Someone spins something out of context. Someone overreacts. WGA is hurting Vista's reputation here. Now one could argue that if someone is that concerned about activation that maybe they might be bending the rules and borrowing software from someone else. But this isn't about activation, but the continued checking that the person is legal. And is that really needed? Isn't once enough?
One can't say that WGA in Vista can't screw up. It did. One can't say that it won't happen again. I'm not in charge of the servers, are you? All I know is right now it seems to me a bit draconian is all and needs to loosen back up to more of an XP status.
Filed under: Vista