Thurrott vs WGA - posts screenshots and overview

Paul Thurrott has had a run in with WGA - albeit on a testbed system, but it gave him chance to have a look at just exactly how the Microsoft 'nag screens' appear - and he shares those screenshots on one of his websites.

The overview that accompanies the screenshots stops short of describing WGA as a 'cancer' as he did (famously?) with IE, but it's certainly clear that he thinks WGA is a bad idea, executed poorly.

This looks like a precursor to a wide spread WGA killswitch coming in the fall. 

It would be nice to know if the copy is from his MSDN or some other source, even he's not sure....and if his MSDN copy is ligit will the WGA resolve this?

Paul will be brought into line soon enough.

I cannot wait until Research is finally done with their "proprietary software ID" concept. Then, we will finally see an "open source kill switch".

rjdohnert wrote:

This looks like a precursor to a wide spread WGA killswitch coming in the fall. 

Badgerguy wrote:



rjdohnert wrote: This looks like a precursor to a wide spread WGA killswitch coming in the fall.

Microsoft can't be that stupid ..... can they?

If you're going to use WGA to actually disable people's Windows Installs, you have to be pretty damn sure that you're not going to hit anyone with false positives - as that would be a sure fire way to really p*** people off!

The more activation and anti-piracy and validation features are loaded into the OS - the more there is to go wrong;

Microsoft would do well to simply keep it simple, and avoid alienating the userbase.

Thurrott, the troublemaker wrote:

Like many people who will see these alerts, I don't believe I did anything wrong.

Thurrott, the utter retard wrote:

The software was installed to a VM a long time ago and archived on my server. I no doubt used a copy of XP MCE 2005 that I had received as part of my MSDN subscription

Considering they've filed around 26 lawsuits for piracy because of WGA, is it really necessary to further WGA with a kill switch?

Also, looking at the text of the WGA notifications, it says "You may be a victim of software counterfeiting".  Doesn't seem very likely a kill switch would follow. 

It would be almost like arresting and jailing a crime scene victim.

I have seen Microsoft do some doozies so it wouldnt surprise me at all if they did it.  I do give Microsoft some credit.  They have some big, clanking iron balls.  No other business in this world save the oil company would think about screwing over their customer base and wouldnt do anything like WGA for fear of pissing off their customers and losing the business.  Microsoft doesnt care.

Badgerguy wrote:



rjdohnert wrote: This looks like a precursor to a wide spread WGA killswitch coming in the fall.

Microsoft can't be that stupid ..... can they?

If you're going to use WGA to actually disable people's Windows Installs, you have to be pretty damn sure that you're not going to hit anyone with false positives - as that would be a sure fire way to really p*** people off!

The more activation and anti-piracy and validation features are loaded into the OS - the more there is to go wrong;

Microsoft would do well to simply keep it simple, and avoid alienating the userbase.

rjdohnert wrote:

I have seen Microsoft do some doozies so it wouldnt surprise me at all if they did it.  I do give Microsoft some credit.  They have some big, clanking iron balls.  No other business in this world save the oil company would think about screwing over their customer base and wouldnt do anything like WGA for fear of pissing off their customers and losing the business.  Microsoft doesnt care.

Harlequin wrote:



rjdohnert wrote: I have seen Microsoft do some doozies so it wouldnt surprise me at all if they did it.  I do give Microsoft some credit.  They have some big, clanking iron balls.  No other business in this world save the oil company would think about screwing over their customer base and wouldnt do anything like WGA for fear of pissing off their customers and losing the business.  Microsoft doesnt care.

Just imagine a big store like Wal-Mart. Do you think they wouldn't make changes if half of their inventory was stolen on a daily basis?

rjdohnert wrote:

This looks like a precursor to a wide spread WGA killswitch coming in the fall. 

jaylittle wrote:


So you assume that he was working with a non-legitimate copy of MCE 2005 then?  I mean thats the obvious implication based on your statements here.  Can you prove that?

Thurrott wrote:

I no doubt used a copy of XP MCE 2005 that I had received as part of my MSDN subscription. If the WGA alerts are to be believed, it's possible that Microsoft thinks I've installed this software on too many machines, though that seems unlikely to me. I can't really say.

Changes, sure.  Car dealers also have cars stolen off their lots regurlarly.  Can you imagine how many customers would sue them or not be very happy if it was suddenly required that the customer  was required to show up in 30 days with the paperwork showing they truly own that vehicle or said dealer will throw a switch and your vehicle will not run anymore.

Harlequin wrote:



rjdohnert wrote: I have seen Microsoft do some doozies so it wouldnt surprise me at all if they did it.  I do give Microsoft some credit.  They have some big, clanking iron balls.  No other business in this world save the oil company would think about screwing over their customer base and wouldnt do anything like WGA for fear of pissing off their customers and losing the business.  Microsoft doesnt care.

Just imagine a big store like Wal-Mart. Do you think they wouldn't make changes if half of their inventory was stolen on a daily basis?

jaylittle wrote:



ScanIAm wrote: Of course they aren't going to do that.  MSFT is the same company that kept Win98 limping along 3 years after they wanted to kill support for it.

Heh.  Telling a customer they have to upgrade because their software is obsolete and telling a customer that they were ripped off and their software isn't legitimate are two different things.

jaylittle wrote:

ScanIAm wrote: To our non-english-as-a-first-language readers, this means that he isn't exactly sure.  He's pretty sure, but maybe not.  But he's sure enough to write an article about it. What a jackhole this guy is.

So you assume that he was working with a non-legitimate copy of MCE 2005 then? 

jaylittle wrote:

I mean thats the obvious implication based on your statements here.  Can you prove that?

rjdohnert wrote:

Changes, sure.  Car dealers also have cars stolen off their lots regurlarly.  Can you imagine how many customers would sue them or not be very happy if it was suddenly required that the customer  was required to show up in 30 days with the paperwork showing they truly own that vehicle or said dealer will throw a switch and your vehicle will not run anymore.

Harlequin wrote:  rjdohnert wrote: I have seen Microsoft do some doozies so it wouldnt surprise me at all if they did it.  I do give Microsoft some credit.  They have some big, clanking iron balls.  No other business in this world save the oil company would think about screwing over their customer base and wouldnt do anything like WGA for fear of pissing off their customers and losing the business.  Microsoft doesnt care. Just imagine a big store like Wal-Mart. Do you think they wouldn't make changes if half of their inventory was stolen on a daily basis?

Orange County Register wrote:

Given the economy and some people's forgetful (or outright dishonest) payment habits, lenders have watched as nonpayment rates on car loans have skyrocketed," writes scareduck. "Now, the more aggressive loan companies are insisting on a new piece of technology called OnTime. Made by Temecula, CA based Payment Processing Systems, it shuts down the ignition so the car won't start once the system has been engaged. Designed to be maximally annoying, the box insists on the owner entering a code weekly to keep the car driving. The device also comes with an emergency code that can be used up to three times. According to one dealership that's selling cars with the device, 'it has slashed repossessions from about 30 annually to two in the past year and a half'.

Actually, both are perfectly good analogies but we will probably nevr agree on this.  I agree with Paul, WGA is an inconvenience and a problem more than a solution.  At some point Microsoft will have to make a decision because this isnt helping.  The hardcore pirates still pirate and all your "incentives" to get genuine have been hacked and put on P2P's.

Find me people that will buy a car with a device like that?  I wouldnt.

Detroit Muscle wrote:



Orange County Register wrote: Given the economy and some people's forgetful (or outright dishonest) payment habits, lenders have watched as nonpayment rates on car loans have skyrocketed," writes scareduck. "Now, the more aggressive loan companies are insisting on a new piece of technology called OnTime. Made by Temecula, CA based Payment Processing Systems, it shuts down the ignition so the car won't start once the system has been engaged. Designed to be maximally annoying, the box insists on the owner entering a code weekly to keep the car driving. The device also comes with an emergency code that can be used up to three times. According to one dealership that's selling cars with the device, 'it has slashed repossessions from about 30 annually to two in the past year and a half'.