Coffeehouse Thread

29 posts

windows "genuine" validation

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    l33tn00b

    why does microsoft give us the option of validation when we download stuff, instead of requiring it or just not having it there?



    i know its an unpopular viewpoint, but i think validaiton should be required for all downloads from microsoft.com . people who are honest and do not pirate should be rewarded.

  • User profile image
    sbc

    Perhaps some don't trust Microsoft not to add tracking cookies or get other information about the machine they are on (but still use Windows, which is odd). Security updates should definitely not require validation - it can often be pirated copies that are on the PC's sending spam and viruses.

  • User profile image
    leighsword

    the windows "genuine" is wrote by Visual C++ too. Smiley

  • User profile image
    SvendTofte

    l33tn00b wrote:

    i know its an unpopular viewpoint, but i think validaiton should be required for all downloads from microsoft.com . people who are honest and do not pirate should be rewarded.



    Not everyone who has a pirated Windows copy actually pirated it themselves.

    I don't know how many percent this is, but it's probably a good bunch of percent.

  • User profile image
    footballism

    I am using an illegally copied Windows XP SP2 now, but my system can also pass the validation process, nice stuff:)Smiley

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    footballism wrote:
    I am using an illegally copied Windows XP SP2 now, but my system can also pass the validation process, nice stuff

  • User profile image
    Tyler Brown

    Hear, Hear!

  • User profile image
    wkempf

    l33tn00b wrote:

    why does microsoft give us the option of validation when we download stuff, instead of requiring it or just not having it there?



    i know its an unpopular viewpoint, but i think validaiton should be required for all downloads from microsoft.com . people who are honest and do not pirate should be rewarded.



    It's unpopular for a reason.  I own legal copies of all my MS software.  Copies I paid for myself.  Having to waste the time with "Activation" to run the programs and "Validation" for downloading updates is offensive at best.  For example, I just repaved a Dell machine I own.  Locating the little sticker on the back of the machine to find the CD key to install the OEM software was a PITA (the machine is kept in a compartment for which it just fits and removing it from the compartment to read the key requires the removal of cables and several minutes of "work").  But the "fun" didn't stop there.  I got everything installed and the computer placed back into it's place, then went to download the Anti-spyware beta, when MS decided to "validate" my software.  This validation required me to physically type in the CD key again!  Well, at that point I was to irritated to be bothered with spending the 10 minutes required to drag the system back out again just to read the little sticker.

    Telling me I should have copied the key down someplace more convenient, or any other number of responses along those lines, is missing the point.  I *PAID* for the software, I should *NOT* be penalized by the inconvenience of having to deal with CD keys, activation or any of the other anti-pirating idiocy that doesn't slow the criminals down in any event.  In fact, in the past I've installed pirated versions (while still holding a valid license purchased with my own money) just to be able to bypass this lunacy.

    MICROSOFT, YOU NEED TO LISTEN TO YOUR CUSTOMERS AND STOP TAKING THESE DRACONIAN ACTIONS THAT ONLY PENALIZE THE LEGITIMATE USERS.

    The worst part is, the rest of the industry is taking MS's lead on this one.  Despite the issues with UI failings, the OpenSource alternatives do look better the more MS implements things like this.

  • User profile image
    MasterPi

    footballism wrote:
    I am using an illegally copied Windows XP SP2 now, but my system can also pass the validation process, nice stuff


    Is that necessarily the best thing to say in an MS affiliated forum?




    mVPstar

  • User profile image
    footballism

    mVPstar wrote:

    Is that necessarily the best thing to say in an MS affiliated forum?
    mVPstar

    I just wanna tell all M$ guys here that if they wanna stop software piracy in China, the best way to do that is not to release any Chinese language version of software:)Smiley

  • User profile image
    figuerres

    wkempf wrote:
    l33tn00b wrote:

    why does microsoft give us the option of validation when we download stuff, instead of requiring it or just not having it there?



    i know its an unpopular viewpoint, but i think validaiton should be required for all downloads from microsoft.com . people who are honest and do not pirate should be rewarded.



    It's unpopular for a reason.  I own legal copies of all my MS software.  Copies I paid for myself.  Having to waste the time with "Activation" to run the programs and "Validation" for downloading updates is offensive at best.  For example, I just repaved a Dell machine I own.  Locating the little sticker on the back of the machine to find the CD key to install the OEM software was a PITA (the machine is kept in a compartment for which it just fits and removing it from the compartment to read the key requires the removal of cables and several minutes of "work").  But the "fun" didn't stop there.  I got everything installed and the computer placed back into it's place, then went to download the Anti-spyware beta, when MS decided to "validate" my software.  This validation required me to physically type in the CD key again!  Well, at that point I was to irritated to be bothered with spending the 10 minutes required to drag the system back out again just to read the little sticker.

    Telling me I should have copied the key down someplace more convenient, or any other number of responses along those lines, is missing the point.  I *PAID* for the software, I should *NOT* be penalized by the inconvenience of having to deal with CD keys, activation or any of the other anti-pirating idiocy that doesn't slow the criminals down in any event.  In fact, in the past I've installed pirated versions (while still holding a valid license purchased with my own money) just to be able to bypass this lunacy.

    MICROSOFT, YOU NEED TO LISTEN TO YOUR CUSTOMERS AND STOP TAKING THESE DRACONIAN ACTIONS THAT ONLY PENALIZE THE LEGITIMATE USERS.

    The worst part is, the rest of the industry is taking MS's lead on this one.  Despite the issues with UI failings, the OpenSource alternatives do look better the more MS implements things like this.


    I think most of the folks at MSFT would agree that they'd like to make it easy for the legal users and hard/impossible for the pirates.

    it's like an arms race, it costs MSFT money to be in that race, but to make money they have to try and win that race.

    come up with a way that works for users and stops prirates, patent it / copyright it and sell it to microsoft and you can get rich.

  • User profile image
    figuerres

    footballism wrote:
    mVPstar wrote:
    Is that necessarily the best thing to say in an MS affiliated forum?
    mVPstar

    I just wanna tell all M$ guys here that if they wanna stop software piracy in China, the best way to do that is not to release any Chinese language version of software


    and that would prove?

    so then more chinese would learn to read and write english while they pirate software??

    Hey maby you are on to something??  Smiley

  • User profile image
    hodo

    Back to the original question...it's an option at this point because it's still just in "trial" phase and a way for MS to get feedback.

    If they just flipped the switch one day they would be fielding a ton of support calls and it would be a management nightmare.  This phased approach is a much better way of implementing this type of change.

  • User profile image
    wkempf

    figuerres wrote:

    I think most of the folks at MSFT would agree that they'd like to make it easy for the legal users and hard/impossible for the pirates.

    it's like an arms race, it costs MSFT money to be in that race, but to make money they have to try and win that race.

    come up with a way that works for users and stops prirates, patent it / copyright it and sell it to microsoft and you can get rich.


    Wrong thinking.  It's highly unlikely you'll stop the pirates.  You'll certainly not do it through technical means.  You'll be lucky to slow them down with that approach.  Prosecution is your best approach to this.  Yes, catching them is then your issue, but that's a fact of life.  The business model has to account for the cost incurred by the pirates, as is done in every other industry.  No more, no less.

    And this should be enough.  The majority of people are honest, and purchase their software.  There's another segment that pirates for various reasons that would stop given enough education (an advertising campaign would be cheaper than these anti-copying schemes) and/or they see that pirates are caught and prosecuted.  That leaves only the hard core pirates, or thieves, who aren't deterred by any of the attempts.  You don't stop them, you don't even slow them down, so using them as your excuse for inconveniencing (at best) your legitimate costumers is stupid.

  • User profile image
    footballism

    W3bbo wrote:
    footballism wrote: I am using an illegally copied Windows XP SP2 now, but my system can also pass the validation process, nice stuff

  • User profile image
    figuerres

    wkempf wrote:
    figuerres wrote:
    I think most of the folks at MSFT would agree that they'd like to make it easy for the legal users and hard/impossible for the pirates.

    it's like an arms race, it costs MSFT money to be in that race, but to make money they have to try and win that race.

    come up with a way that works for users and stops prirates, patent it / copyright it and sell it to microsoft and you can get rich.


    Wrong thinking.  It's highly unlikely you'll stop the pirates.  You'll certainly not do it through technical means.  You'll be lucky to slow them down with that approach.  Prosecution is your best approach to this.  Yes, catching them is then your issue, but that's a fact of life.  The business model has to account for the cost incurred by the pirates, as is done in every other industry.  No more, no less.

    And this should be enough.  The majority of people are honest, and purchase their software.  There's another segment that pirates for various reasons that would stop given enough education (an advertising campaign would be cheaper than these anti-copying schemes) and/or they see that pirates are caught and prosecuted.  That leaves only the hard core pirates, or thieves, who aren't deterred by any of the attempts.  You don't stop them, you don't even slow them down, so using them as your excuse for inconveniencing (at best) your legitimate costumers is stupid.


    yes the tech war is doomed for the most part.

    but I think that they need / want a way to know that they have legal users getting benifts and not users of illegal copies.

    so taking someone to court when you catch them has a place but how do you find the ones to take to court?

    I agree that say 90% are "Legal" all the way
    that say 2% activly pirate
    and say 10% have a priated copy and may not know they are using an ilegal item.

    sound about right?

  • User profile image
    wkempf

    figuerres wrote:

    yes the tech war is doomed for the most part.

    but I think that they need / want a way to know that they have legal users getting benifts and not users of illegal copies.

    so taking someone to court when you catch them has a place but how do you find the ones to take to court?

    I agree that say 90% are "Legal" all the way
    that say 2% activly pirate
    and say 10% have a priated copy and may not know they are using an ilegal item.

    sound about right?


    I'm not sure how you find the ones pirating, but you certainly don't do it by using anti-copying tech.  That's an attempt to prevent (that is doomed to fail), not an attempt to catch.

    I have no clue what the percentages are, and I'm not sure how they're relevant, but let's just assume you're in the ball park.  What point are you trying to make?

  • User profile image
    jonathanh

    Windows Validation is never going to stop the hobbyists who actively want to pirate and put the effort into it, such as footballism.

    But that's not who it's aimed at. It's all about reaching the people who are running pirated software but either don't know it or would rather not know how they got such a great deal. That's a MUCH bigger fraction of the total user base, and they get an amnesty if they fess up and provide details of how they obtained the pirated software. That information is then used to prosecute the people actively selling pirated software.

Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.