Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

WGA Turning Off PCs in the Fall?

Posted by Zonk on Thu Jun 29, 2006 01:41 PM
from the no-more-clippy dept.
thesaint05 writes "We all know about Microsoft's WGA initiative that started last July. Most of us were troubled to learn that the WGA has been 'phoning home' to Microsoft at every boot. Well, get ready, because eventually Microsoft may be turning off copies of Windows without WGA installed. According to a Microsoft technician, 'in the fall, having the latest WGA will become mandatory and if its not installed, Windows will give a 30 day warning and when the 30 days is up and WGA isn't installed, Windows will stop working, so you might as well install WGA now.'" A new version of WGA was released on Tuesday and, at least for the time being, Windows users have the option of removing WGA from their systems.
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Your Rights Online: Microsoft Misrepresenting WGA's Functionality? 458 comments
Legal Ethics writes "According to an article on Groklaw, Microsoft is misrepresenting what the Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) tool is to pressure people into installing it. It comes with no uninstall, it fails to disclose many pieces of information it provides to Microsoft, and it misrepresents itself as a 'critical update' when it does not address any security vulnerability, although it remains to be seen if it can create one. ZDNet has a series of screenshots so that you can see exactly how badly it misrepresents itself. Oh, and it also checks for updates, so Microsoft can presumably execute arbitrary code on any machine with it installed, merely by making that code part of a WGA update."
[+] Microsoft Genuine Advantage Cracked 427 comments
piyush ranjan writes "An Indian researcher has cracked the much-touted "impenetrable" Windows Genuine Advantage of Microsoft. According to Microsoft this service would soon require all Windows users to verify their license before downloading updates."
[+] Backslash: Windows Genuine Advantage Makes Few Friends 352 comments
Readers left more than 800 comments on yesterday's report (based on the say-so of a Windows tech-support provider) that Microsoft may be turning off copies of Windows without WGA installed, as of this fall. (WGA is Microsoft's "Windows Genuine Advantage," a program using software of the same name installed on Windows users' computers intended to verify that the OS is correctly licensed.) Many suggested reasons that this sounds like no more than a rumor, while others took the opportunity to critique WGA as it currently operates on Windows machines, or to describe what they see as opportunities for the users and makers of operating systems other than Windows if (or perhaps when) Microsoft actually does shut down copies of Windows which it suspects are being used out of license. Read on for the Backslash summary to see some of the comments which defined the conversation. Update: 06/30 21:28 GMT by T : A cut-and-paste mishap gave the word "people" one too many Ps; now corrected.
[+] Your Rights Online: Paul Thurrott Bitten by WGA 591 comments
suntory writes "Paul Thurrott, one of the most important Microsoft advocates, has been bitten by Windows Genuine Advantage. As some Slashdot users have reported, Paul installed a bunch of updates in his machine and now Microsoft thinks that he is using pirated software." From the post: "Truthfully, I can only imagine what triggered these alerts. 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. 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. Anyway, that's what it looks like to be a suspected pirate. Like many people who will see these alerts, I don't believe I did anything wrong. I'm sure that's going to be a common refrain in this new era of untrusting software and companies. Ah well."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • What? What was that sound? Was that the sound of millions of unlicensed Windows machines all screaming out in shutdown all at once - and then suddenly silenced?

    To keep the current Futurama motif running, quoth Professor Farnsworth, "The Jedi are going to feel this one!"

    Seriously, though, doesn't Microsoft realize that significant number of users aren't going to go out and suddenly buy Windows? Sure, most (half?) will, but the rest will go hunting for a truly free (read: no-cost) alternative until a hack comes out.

    How could this possibly be a good idea now ? Maybe if it had been there all along, or was introduced in a new release (XP, Vista, whatever)... but why spring it on the unsuspecting masses mid-cycle? That just screams massive user migration.

    Not that I'm shedding any tears in reaction to that concept!
    • Wait, let me read between the oh so subtle lines... You think people are going to be migrating in droves to Linux? Give me a break, people won't be moving to Linux. They'll find a hack for Windows, they'll buy Windows, or more than likely they'll just buy a new PC that comes with Windows legally bundled. Nobody is moving to Linux because the games aren't there, the thousands of cheesy little Windows applications people love aren't there, it's different (read: scary), and it's a pain in the ass for most joe schmoes to install.
    • by DaHat (247651) on Thursday June 29 2006, @01:47PM (#15629185) Homepage
      I disagree, most users are not very bright and as such when their PC stops working they'll do just about anything to make it work... whether it be plunk down 100-300 bucks for a copy of windows or even 300-500 for a new Windows based PC.

      Sure... they could go to Linux or other open source based systems but the fact that most have never heard of it and just want their PC to work exactly as it did before basically precludes this possibility.
      • I agree to an extent. But the OP has a point as well. Either way, Microsoft will be decreasing their install base in order to gain a few more legit sales. Expect to see more volume license keys here and there.

        This really smacks of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. If they do go through with this, I can see them losing their monopoly status within a few years.
      • by bigpat (158134) on Thursday June 29 2006, @01:57PM (#15629327) Homepage
        Sure... they could go to Linux or other open source based systems but the fact that most have never heard of it and just want their PC to work exactly as it did before basically precludes this possibility.

        Money is a suprisingly efficient motivator.

      • I disagree, most users are not very bright and as such when their PC stops working they'll do just about anything to make it work... whether it be plunk down 100-300 bucks for a copy of windows or even 300-500 for a new Windows based PC.
        Perhaps if they did not buy the OS to begin with, your point has some value.

        What about the guy who DID buy his copy of Windows, or got it bundled with his machine. If his copy got turned off by mistake, he will be QUITE unhappy to pay again for something that he already owns. In some circles this is called "extortion" if done intentionally. This will breed a LOT of ill will.

        The other thing that totally honked me off is that WPA was supposed to reduce piracy. If it actually worked, Microsoft would lose less to piracy. Shouldn't the consumers get reduced prices to compensate for the inconvenience? After all, Microsoft is now making more money, right? Somehow, I bet that Microsoft will not lower the Vista prices even after WGA turns on fully.

        Personally, I am grabbing some popcorn and am going to enjoy watching the meltdown of Microsoft if this thing happens. If I were suddenly forced to give up Windows, the only thing that I would miss besides games is my accounting package (and no, Gnucash can't replace that until it learns how to handle inventory tracking).
    • That just screams massive user migration.

      ... to Vista, which is precisely what MS probably wants.

    • by mrchaotica (681592) * on Thursday June 29 2006, @01:52PM (#15629245)
      How could this possibly be a good idea now ? Maybe if it had been there all along, or was introduced in a new release (XP, Vista, whatever)... but why spring it on the unsuspecting masses mid-cycle? That just screams massive user migration.

      First of all, they did have this all along: it's called Windows Product Activation. C'mon, you should have seen this coming from the beginning!

      Second of all, doing it slowly like this actually works out better for Microsoft. If you put a frog in a pot of boiling water, he'll jump out. But if you put him in a pot of cold water and heat it up to boiling, he'll get cooked. Similarly, if you started this with Vista people would simply choose to keep their existing XP, or upgrade to Linux instead. But doing it this way, by stealthily installing it and then turning off the software they already have, you get more of them to "fix" it (by doing whatever they have to do to make it "genuine") because they're already invested.

  • How is this legal? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by abionnnn (758579) on Thursday June 29 2006, @01:44PM (#15629158)
    Is there anything in the EULA that allows them to get away with this?
    • by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Thursday June 29 2006, @01:48PM (#15629192) Homepage Journal
      Is there anything in the EULA that allows them to get away with this?

      Uh, if you didn't pay for it, you're not a party to the EULA - and if you were, you'd already be violating the EULA, which says you have to purchase it; so you'd already be in breach if it were considered a contract - which has not been shown on a broad basis, only in a couple of lower courts.

      The EULA is probably worth more as bumwad than as a contract, and it's printed on paper way too scratchy to be good for that, either.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 29 2006, @01:59PM (#15629347)
      EULA be damned. There isn't anything in the world, written or otherwise, that would allow them to get away with this without extremely serious fallout, or they would already have done it, years ago, instead of XP's activation for example.

      Here's some reasons for you.

      Firstly, it would be the best PR they could ever give to every other operating system on the market; Linux, BSD, heck, even ReactOS; and, yes, also Apple. "Hey, our operating system isn't designed to break deliberately." MS have a marketing department. They wouldn't like that.

      Secondly, ever wondered just how much critical infrastructure REALLY runs on unlicensed copies of Windows? MS has a CEO. He'd get angry presidential phonecalls. He wouldn't like that.

      Thirdly, the fact that such a thing existed would represent a single critical point of failure for all internet-connected Windows PCs, a global killswitch. MS do have a security department, as do many other people who use Windows as part of their global businesses, many of which are larger than Microsoft. They wouldn't like that.

      And finally, ever think what #1 and #2 would do to the share price? Assuming the stock markets keep running, that is. Microsoft would stand a very real chance of being put out of business overnight. The board and the shareholders wouldn't like that.

      Oh yeah, one more thing; the pirates would crack it so fast and so hard, and the crack would be such big news, it wouldn't have nearly as significant an effect on the number of unlicensed Windows boxes as you think (though it would mean that no-one, anywhere, would ever trust Microsoft again for anything).

      Microsoft are't always the brightest bulb in the box, but they aren't literally suicidal.
      • by MindStalker (22827) <jlarsen@@@fsu...edu> on Thursday June 29 2006, @01:52PM (#15629265) Journal
        Yes, but as the article stated the will turn off any machine not running the LATEST version of WGA. If you havn't installed any of the most recently updates whatsoever and have been running a pirated version all long there is no way that MS will be able to shut off your machine. This feature simply wasn't built in originally. So they will only be hurting those who are legal and don't have the most recent WGA version, or those who are illigal and stupid.
  • by jkrise (535370) on Thursday June 29 2006, @01:49PM (#15629208) Journal
    From Windows XP to Windows 98-SE.....

    BTW, I've got a Home PC running my office's license of XP. I get some crazy messages at home from the WGA.... strangely the office PCs hardly grumble.

    No wonder Gates is leaving the party...
  • No way. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by willith (218835) * on Thursday June 29 2006, @01:56PM (#15629303) Homepage
    If this is all true, I'll eat my hat.

    The thing to look it is how this might affect legitimate corporate versions of XP--and by that, I mean VLK versions actually being used in an enterprise setting.

    The company for which I work has more than 100,000 copies of XP running in offices on six continents, participating in one of the largest Active Directory installations in the world. Every system's load is tightly controlled and managed, and I can tell you that there are no copies of WGA anywhere on any of those desktops (I've seen the SMS reports). Nor will there ever be.

    People say to "vote with your dollars", but your dollars, and my dollars, don't matter. Large corporate dollars matter--like the kind of dollars that can outfit a company's world-wide IT needs. WGA has no place on a configuration-controlled and managed enterprise desktop, and MS would never risk upsetting their real customers--corporate Windows & Office sales--to emplace something like this.
  • by flynt (248848) on Thursday June 29 2006, @01:56PM (#15629308)
    Before you get too excited, this is a slashdot link to a zdnet story that links to a blog called Interesting People that posted an email from an end user named David Pollack who got this information from a guy at an 800 number at Windows support. I'll wait until I learn more before making a judgement.
  • by jnaujok (804613) on Thursday June 29 2006, @01:57PM (#15629317) Homepage Journal
    What about my two perfectly legitimately licensed machines at home that fail the "Windows Genuine Advantage" test every time they update WGA? Considering that one of them is my copy of Advanced Server 2003, I won't be exactly happy when it gets killed this fall. (Hey, I just use it for the mail server program because I can't stand sendmail.)

    And I'm just a little bitty guy with one server running. What happens when this hits some company's server farm and they all shut down? How much liability is MicroSoft going to have when that happens?

    And every time they "fix" my copy after the new WGA comes out, I have to make manual registry changes. Can you imagine having to do that on a 500 machine server farm?

    Great idea MicroSoft, if your product actually worked.
  • by ewhac (5844) on Thursday June 29 2006, @02:06PM (#15629430) Homepage Journal
    I thought this was what Windows Activation was supposed to do -- validate the copy of Windows as genuine, and then we're done, we don't have to deal with those jerks any more.

    Now they seem to be telling us, "Oh, no, Activation never really worked. We need to continuously validate the system."

    No. You don't. And you won't.

    I just built a brand new machine, primarily for gaming. Oblivion has been fairly sweet. But it looks like I won't be playing those games anymore -- not unless the entire game industry decides to support Linux.

    This is morally and ethically reprehensible, and Microsoft knows it, and apparently doesn't care. Well, I do care. I do not, and shall not, grant consent to Microsoft to remotely snoop on my machine, regardless of their ostensible reasons. If my copy of Windows stops functioning as a result, I will take that as a maliciously incorporated product defect, and respond accordingly.

    Schwab

    • Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by riptide_dot (759229) * on Thursday June 29 2006, @01:52PM (#15629253)
      It is their product, if you didn't pay for it I don't see how you can complain that they aren't going to support you or allow you to continue using it. If you want software to be free that much, use Linux and stop complaining. What if I did pay for it and I don't want the WGA software installed? I'm not allowed to use the sofware I PAID FOR because I don't want to add on to it? That's like selling me a car and telling me that if I refuse to put a spoiler on the back that I won't be allowed to drive it.
    • by alricsca (442535) on Thursday June 29 2006, @02:03PM (#15629395)
      Some of us are forced to use MS Windows because our jobs demand we use products like Visual Studio which only runs on it.

      First off I did pay. Second I do not like having to have it call home and it giving them any personal information including my IP and prod ID to activate which seems to happen every time a tech savy person does anything significant to their computers. Third, I do not like having them infect my computer with endlessly growing DRM shit to support all this. Forth once you grant them this right you give them the power to do so much more than they are currently claiming they are going to do. Imagine forced DRM installation, expiring software leases, and complete user tracking from purchase to forced obsolescence. Fifth, we are the customer, it is their job to meet our demands, not make us their slaves.
    • Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mrchaotica (681592) * on Thursday June 29 2006, @02:03PM (#15629398)

      You don't get it. If Microsoft has the ability to remotely disable Windows, they could do it to anyone. Today it's copyright infringers; tomorrow it could be people who run P2P apps or who use iTunes or who aren't white or any other thing. Or, for that matter, some malicious employee or outside hacker could do it. There are any number of scenarios where your computer could get disabled whether your copy is actually legitimate or not.

      Apparantly you're a sheep, but I care enough about my own property that giving somebody the ability to cut off my access to it is Not Acceptable. I don't care that it doesn't affect me because I use Linux; it's still a moral outrage!

    • Re:TOLD YOU SO! (Score:5, Informative)

      by Kremit (632241) <.ten.nprw. .ta. .timerk.> on Thursday June 29 2006, @01:52PM (#15629256) Homepage
      I was in the same boat as you. I switched to Linux (on my main desktop at least -- my servers have always ran some form of *NIX) on October 25, 2001, the same day Windows XP was released.

      Now this, this is absolutely rediculous. This is going to have huge repercussions; I happened to click over to the "Genuine Windows Forum" and saw all kinds of posts there of NEW Dell desktops, valid CDs, and other licensed systems having problems with WGA. When these systems stop working, people are going to flip. To them, this will be akin to the computer crashing and taking their data along with it.
    • Slim left town (Score:5, Interesting)

      by overshoot (39700) on Thursday June 29 2006, @01:55PM (#15629291)
      I can't imagine that Microsoft would be so stupid as to eventually start turning off people's Windows systems. Talk about cutting your own throat. Even the Microsoft fans would start thinking of turning to other OS options.
      A very insightful post on ZD (same subject) pointed out that MS has had enough experience now with desktop Linux to not fear it. A few years ago, they were really worried -- but Linux got to be very good as a desktop system and MS saw absolutely no loss of market.

      Now they know that they really do have the world by the balls, and they've decided to squeeze.

      Let's face it -- the MS fans will bitch and whine, then they'll do as they're told. This is going to be a very good bottom-line move for Microsoft.