Windows XP Activation [Archive]

djnes

07-28-2005, 01:08 PM

I'm having a problem understanding how many people on here think, so I'm going to ask this question. Why are so many people throwing a hissy fit about having to activate XP? I have a legal corporate key that I use for my own system at home, so I don't have to do any of the activating. My fiancee has a laptop I bought for her with XP Home on it, which I did have to activate once, soon after buying the laptop. I've also helped quite a few neighbors and friends activate their copies, either for the first time, or after making some hardware changes. I have never EVER had any hassle from Microsoft, nor has it taken more than 5 minutes to do. So my question is this:

What is the big freakin' deal? Is 5 minutes on a toll free call too much to ask, assuming it isn't done online? Is laziness that rampant? Or is it just that far too many people fail to realize that Microsoft has ever right to protect their property, and they've done a pretty good job of implementing a protection scheme that isn't too obtrusive. I see so many people throwing a fit, saying they won't use XP because of the activation. I find this to be absolutely ridiculous. Can anyone explain this rash of madness to me, or am I missing something since I don't have to activate my own machine?

NOTE to mods: If this turns into a pointless Linux vs Windows debate, please lock the thread.

hulksterjoe

07-28-2005, 01:49 PM

I've always wondered the same thing.. only I was to lazy to type it all out ;)

I think that an awful lot of people start playing around with their systems and activate it as soon as they get into windows. ( A MISTAKE) especially if your tweaking it.. get it stable before you click. you've got 30 days.. use it ...

Phoenix86

07-28-2005, 01:56 PM

What benefit does activation provide to the consumer? Same with their new checks on patches?

wrangler

07-28-2005, 02:07 PM

Well, being someone who messes around a lot with his system I recently found out about the OEM copies no longer being automatic. I got my copy of Windows XP when I bought my barebones from a re-seller. I guess unless you buy your copy from Best Buy at full price this "unobtrusive" activation doesn't apply.

example

I am the kind of user who will re-format and re-install at the drop of a hat. If something starts acting funny and I can't fix it or make it go away with normal procedures (which happens alot when overclocking from corruption etc.) then I pull out the floppy with the 1's and 0's on it wipe that sucker clean and re-install from scratch.

I can't do that anymore without having to call Microsoft. Stay on hold for however long they feel like keeping me there. When they finally answer I have to go through a long procedure to get them a number that they need to verify my system is legit.

This happens every time. Even though by now, I'm sure they know I don't have a pirated copy and I'm using it on the same harddrive it was first installed on.

Just my rant on the subject.

mohammedtaha

07-28-2005, 02:11 PM

well guess what people ... starting 3 days ago .. no one needs activation keys

:D

Don't you guys read the news anymore .. jeez

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2005/jul05/07-25WGA1PR.mspx

Microsoft has enhanced and simplified the validation process by automatically checking participants’ PCs to determine whether they are running genuine Windows software. All Windows users will no longer be required to enter their 25-digit product key to validate their software.

skyeandangus

07-28-2005, 02:17 PM

Of all the times I've installed XP, it's worked online all times but once, when I replaced both the mobo and the CPU on my own machine. I had to call Microsoft, and they were very kind, if in broken english. It was pain free, and I have no problem with it.

mcravenufo

07-28-2005, 02:21 PM

wrangler

07-28-2005, 02:32 PM

djnes

07-28-2005, 02:35 PM

The company I work for installs Windows all over the world.
Long story short, Microsoft is making it very difficult for us to install Windows on our customers sites so we are in the process of rewriting all of our applications to Linux.
We are now converting all in house servers and such to Linux. We hope to have all our new customers using Linux only within a year.
When your getting into an environment like that, you should be using VLK versions. It's possible there needs to be a middle ground between VLK and single, home licenses, but if your doing remote installs and pushing the OS out to large numbers of client machines, you shouldn't be doing it with single licenses anyway.

mohammedtaha

07-28-2005, 02:48 PM

Doesn't apply to installations. Only updates.

No..

It applies to installations too ..

You only need to type in the given cd-key at the beginning to install windows .. and if you can't verify because you installed it too many times, it will verify it when you install the updates anyways. I did it a couple of days ago.

wrangler

07-28-2005, 03:13 PM

Hmm.

I'll have to try it. I read that when it first came out. I used the new "validation" process when I downloaded msspyware beta months ago letting install it's little active-x program to verify that I had genuine MS operating system.

It's interesting that the report says you will not have to enter your 25 digit key yet you indicate that you did indeed have to enter yours. I guess this is the part of the report that confused me cause I've installed enough times to know you can't even get to loading the files without entering that key.
This cause me to believe they weren't reffering to installations.

Mr Mean

07-28-2005, 03:17 PM

Most of the people who are complaining are the ones that steal their copy of windows. The people who have purchased it legally don't complain. Because as you clearly said it's very painless and simple. I never had a reactivation notice until I did a new motherboard/cpu install :P But I reformat when I install a new motherboard anyways .

OldMX

07-28-2005, 04:06 PM

In my opinion this activation / verification is pure crap, winxp has not been pirated as much as windows95/98/me was in their days, i feel sorry for the pirates no more winupdate for them but its pointless and more dangerous for global internet population leaving those machines unpatched or unprotected of the everyday growing worm, trojans threats.

my 2 cents

oldmx

Phoenix86

07-28-2005, 04:16 PM

n64man120

07-28-2005, 04:19 PM

ccotenj

07-28-2005, 04:42 PM

Phoenix86

07-28-2005, 04:53 PM

microsoft has no contract or obligation with the "global internet population", (legal, social or otherwise) to protect them from worms, trojans etc.
But they do have an obligation to their paying customers, most of which are of course on the internet.

The less problems windows has, regardless of the source, is better for their customers.

PaHick

07-28-2005, 05:18 PM

microsoft has no contract or obligation with the "global internet population", (legal, social or otherwise) to protect them from worms, trojans etc.

BS, pure and simple. If the hackers are using their code to manufacture viruses, they are liable. Same thing already happened in the real world. Example: Joe Blow kills Jane Doe with a Glock. Jane Does family sues Glock. Jane Does family recieves huge settlement. Its not all that different if a Corporation would persue Microsoft in the event of a "system shutdown" from a virus. It just didnt happen yet. But the legal grounds are there.

Phoenix86

07-28-2005, 05:40 PM

BS, pure and simple. If the hackers are using their code to manufacture viruses, they are liable. Same thing already happened in the real world. Example: Joe Blow kills Jane Doe with a Glock. Jane Does family sues Glock. Jane Does family recieves huge settlement. Its not all that different if a Corporation would persue Microsoft in the event of a "system shutdown" from a virus. It just didnt happen yet. But the legal grounds are there.
That's not exactly how it works... Actually, that's not how it works at all.

edit: there have been HUNDREDS of virus that affect windows. Show me one lawsuit that succeeded.

PaHick

07-28-2005, 06:01 PM

That's not exactly how it works... Actually, that's not how it works at all.

edit: there have been HUNDREDS of virus that affect windows. Show me one lawsuit that succeeded.

Did you happen to read the part where I said "It just didnt happen yet"? If that example isnt legally similar, could please tell me "how it actually works"?

**EDIT: Im not saying it will happen, matter of fact it probably wont happen. But, from a legal standpoint it can happen. I hope you werent saying that in my example it doesnt work that way.

ccotenj

07-28-2005, 06:16 PM

sorry, the analogy doesn't work on many levels, not the least of which is that murder against the law and writing viruses isn't...

Phoenix86

07-28-2005, 06:20 PM

Did you happen to read the part where I said "It just didnt happen yet"? If that example isnt legally similar, could please tell me "how it actually works"?

**EDIT: Im not saying it will happen, matter of fact it probably wont happen. But, from a legal standpoint it can happen. I hope you werent saying that in my example it doesnt work that way.
I'm saying it doesn't happen that way.

Did you happen to read where I asked for an example? I'm searching through your posts and I don't see one. However I do see this: Judge dismisses Glock lawsuit. (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3197/is_n6_v42/ai_19767928)

How much time needs to pass? There have been MAJOR virus outbreaks that stopped BIG companies from doing business (Nimda anyone?), yet they decided to wait? For what? The laywer fairy to bless their case? No. They haven't sued because it's not the manufacturer's fault, and they wouldn't get anywhere in the courts.

How it actually works:

Company gets infected.
Comany is brought to it's knees, business halts.
Comany claims loss on business loss insurance.
Comapny may fire responsible IT people.
Comany doesn't sue anyone unless the insurance thing doesn't go well, then they sue the insurance company.

ccotenj

07-28-2005, 06:24 PM

But they do have an obligation to their paying customers, most of which are of course on the internet.

The less problems windows has, regardless of the source, is better for their customers.

i don't buy it... they "should" have an obligation to their paying customers that it works as designed (although if you read the eula, they don't even have that legal obligation), but they don't have an obligation to protect everyone from everything... there's a personal responsibility involved... microsoft IS providing the patches, etc. to paying customers, it's up to those customers to install them... saying that un-updated pirated copies make it easier to spread viruses is a specious argument, because if the paying customer does his job (i.e. updates his software), it's not an issue...

PaHick

07-28-2005, 06:39 PM

I'm saying it doesn't happen that way.

Did you happen to read where I asked for an example? I'm searching through your posts and I don't see one. However I do see this: Judge dismisses Glock lawsuit. (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3197/is_n6_v42/ai_19767928)

How much time needs to pass? There have been MAJOR virus outbreaks that stopped BIG companies from doing business (Nimda anyone?), yet they decided to wait? For what? The laywer fairy to bless their case? No. They haven't sued because it's not the manufacturer's fault, and they wouldn't get anywhere in the courts.

How it actually works:

Company gets infected.
Comany is brought to it's knees, business halts.
Comany claims loss on business loss insurance.
Comapny may fire responsible IT people.
Comany doesn't sue anyone unless the insurance thing doesn't go well, then they sue the insurance company.

Example 1 (http://articles.fool.com/coms2/summary_0268-mft04091411_ITM)

Example 2 (http://www.usmayors.org/uscm/us_mayor_newspaper/documents/12_18_00/smithwesson.htm)
Theres others if you'd like. Like I said ,again, it didnt happen yet. But it can. If you dont think a company and a team of lawyers can do the same legally your wrong, but I wont argue the point any longer. Your right, im wrong....end of story.

**EDIT:

BTW...your link is flawed, the suit which was dismissed had nothing to do with Glock. The part about Glock showed Smith and Wesson settling a patent infringement suit that Glock brought upon them. Nice try.

sorry, the analogy doesn't work on many levels, not the least of which is that murder against the law and writing viruses isn't...

I would say virus writing and spreading are illegal...

Federal Code Related to Cybercrime (http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/fedcode.htm)

Phoenix86

07-28-2005, 06:50 PM

i don't buy it... they "should" have an obligation to their paying customers that it works as designed (although if you read the eula, they don't even have that legal obligation), but they don't have an obligation to protect everyone from everything... there's a personal responsibility involved... microsoft IS providing the patches, etc. to paying customers, it's up to those customers to install them... saying that un-updated pirated copies make it easier to spread viruses is a specious argument, because if the paying customer does his job (i.e. updates his software), it's not an issue...
I'm not talking obligation in a legal sense, but in a business sense.

"If you don't take care of the customers, someone else will."

MS is being a bit heavy handed (aka, they can get away with it to a degree).

The fully patched customer can still have issues because of unpatched machines, because of this, paying customers are being hurt by unpatched pirated PCs. SPAM is an example.

Phoenix86

07-28-2005, 06:53 PM

Example 1 (http://articles.fool.com/coms2/summary_0268-mft04091411_ITM)

Example 2 (http://www.usmayors.org/uscm/us_mayor_newspaper/documents/12_18_00/smithwesson.htm)
Theres others if you'd like. Like I said ,again, it didnt happen yet. But it can. If you dont think a company and a team of lawyers can do the same legally your wrong, but I wont argue the point any longer. Your right, im wrong....end of story.
Ex. 1 is a faulty product. Viruses are not a faulty product, they are an *attack* on a product. Perhaps if windows failed by itself, say it deleted files randomly, then it'd be closer to a comparison. If it did this, there might be a basis for a similar suit.

Ex. 2 was settled out of court.

Thanks for a mature discussion. :rolleyes:

edit: Anyways, back to the topic

Is there a benefit to activation to the consumers?

ccotenj

07-28-2005, 06:55 PM

ccotenj

07-28-2005, 06:56 PM

I would say virus writing and spreading are illegal...

[URL=http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/fedcode.htm]Federal Code Related to Cybercrime (http://articles.fool.com/coms2/summary_0268-mft04091411_ITM)

and furthermore, there's nothing in those codes that states that virus writing and spreading are illegal...

trademark/copyright infringement are... but hosing someone's machine doesn't appear in any of those codes...

unless i'm misreading something, in which case you should feel free to point it out...

PaHick

07-28-2005, 06:57 PM

Ex. 1 is a faulty product. Viruses are not a faulty product, they are an *attack* on a product. Perhaps if windows failed by itself, say it deleted files randomly, then it'd be closer to a comparison. If it did this, there might be a basis for a similar suit.

Ex. 2 was settled out of court.

Thanks for a mature discussion. :rolleyes:

How is #1 a faulty product? They manufactured a weapon used by the East Coast Snipers. What did I post a wrong link?? And #2 is a perfect example...settled out of court because legally they knew what they were up against. VERY mature if you ask me.Thank you!

PaHick

07-28-2005, 07:01 PM

and furthermore, there's nothing in those codes that states that virus writing and spreading are illegal...

trademark/copyright infringement are... but hosing someone's machine doesn't appear in any of those codes...

unless i'm misreading something, in which case you should feel free to point it out...

It states........

(5)(A)(i) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;

Wouldnt that be a virus?

Sorry double post :( ....and your right,back on topic.

ccotenj

07-28-2005, 07:05 PM

"damage to a protected computer"...

note the key words here ... "a protected computer"...

PaHick

07-28-2005, 07:09 PM

"damage to a protected computer"...

note the key words here ... "a protected computer"...

And your point is what? Are you implying that all the computers infected by Klez.H or any of the others werent protected?

**EDIT:
Im sorry djnes. No intention to hijack the thread.

My problem with activation is it isnt always a simple thing to do. I was swapping parts left and right for a month or two when I first got XP. About 6 months later I went through that again. Im still changing parts frequently. I went through the activation process by phone 7 times,and each time I got a person with an accent so heavy I couldnt understand them. Three of those times I had to call back and try another person. I can understand farming out tech support to other countries, but at least be understanding and accomodating to the customers needs by being able to be understood when heard.

djnes

07-29-2005, 09:10 AM

**EDIT:
Im sorry djnes. No intention to hijack the thread.

No problem at all. This is actually an interesting discussion. As long as everyone leaves their flame throwers on safety, I hope this continues.

Susquehannock

07-29-2005, 09:22 AM

Is there a benefit to activation to the consumers?

Any thoughts?

Sadly, with many products as time goes by the needs of the criminal take precedence over
those of the target consumer.

Decongestant tablets are a perfect example. A few criminals use them to make methamphetamine
yet all legitimate users are made to deal with tricky packaging as a result. Not to mention
that many areas don't even sell decongestant tablets anymore. Or they make you sign a
form, and still won't let you buy more than one package at a time.

Similarly, this new validation & activation scheme for XP is more of a pain to those who hold
legitimate copies than the pirates.

djnes

07-29-2005, 09:25 AM

How about a benefit of activation being that you have the knowledge it's legal, meaning if you pursue support from Microsoft, there will be no issues.

We have to put serial numbers in for most of the software we use, which enables the application to work. If you choose not to activate, your limited to 30 days. I'd call that a major benefit.

ccotenj

07-29-2005, 09:43 AM

Sadly, with many products as time goes by the needs of the criminal take precedence over
those of the target consumer.

no... simply not true... it's not the "needs of the criminal"... it's the "fact that there are criminals"...

the benefit to the consumer, in the long run is that if microsoft (and other companies) can limit software piracy, they will sell more legitimate copies, thus allowing them to spread their development/testing costs across more units sold, thus resulting in a decrease in selling price... people are looking at this only from the "what does this get me TODAY" standpoint (i.e. tactical), vs. a long term (i.e. strategic)...

and fwiw, there's bunches of irritants out there in the world that don't "appear" to benefit the consumer... one i can think of right off the top of my head is cd packaging... it can be downright impossible to remove the cellophane wrap from some of these things... doesn't benefit the paying customer to have to do that, right? well, yes, in the long run, it does, because less of them get stolen that way...

too many people are attempting to blame the victim here, when they should be pointing the finger at themselves... if they didn't steal, microsoft would have no reason to do this...

Susquehannock

07-29-2005, 09:43 AM

As has been said many times before, most of those who pirate XP have little interest in
updates and likely won't be affected by the new validation scheme at all.

And yes, I do think that changing a product in responce to criminal activity while at
the same time making it more difficult for legitimate consumers is wrong.
Not saying I have all the answers, just think it should not be that way.

Phoenix86

07-29-2005, 10:13 AM

are you implying that if every windows machine out there, legal and extra-legal, was completely and fully patched, we wouldn't have spam?

leaving aside the fact that spam wasn't part of the original argument... :)
Yes and no, we would have *less* SPAM. Making a PC a SPAM zombie is a common goal for malware.

DDOS attacks are another common goal of malware that affects legal windows users.

My first post, the first reply, asked how this helps the customers. SPAM, DDOS attacks, clogged networks, and the various other effects of infected machines I'm not bringing up negativly impact MS's legit customers.

PaHick
but I wont argue the point any longer. Your right, im wrong....end of story.
Sorry I'm not discussing this further with you after this comment. I don't care what your point is now, you'll just resort to childish remarks.

How about a benefit of activation being that you have the knowledge it's legal, meaning if you pursue support from Microsoft, there will be no issues.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Do I need to say more? I'm legit because I PAYED. I already KNOW I'm legit. They can provide a method for people who are unsure about their license w/o denying activation/patches.

Support from MS? Sorry I don't buy that either. Besides what do you get with a retail license, 1 call in the first 30 days for 1 *install only* issue or something like that?

Besides, who calls MS for support? Riase of hands here?
*crickets*

We have to put serial numbers in for most of the software we use, which enables the application to work. If you choose not to activate, your limited to 30 days. I'd call that a major benefit.
Your not being that narrow minded... Get rid of activation, and you don't need that "benefit".

I already entered my key when I installed, right?

the benefit to the consumer, in the long run is that if microsoft (and other companies) can limit software piracy, they will sell more legitimate copies, thus allowing them to spread their development/testing costs across more units sold, thus resulting in a decrease in selling price... people are looking at this only from the "what does this get me TODAY" standpoint (i.e. tactical), vs. a long term (i.e. strategic)...
I'm an MS supporter, but are you that jaded?

I mean I understand the concept, but do you really think activation will reduce the price of the OS???
:confused:

I'd accept activation for a lower cost, even over time. So, lets look at the proof in the pudding. Activation was introduced with XP. How much has XP lowered in cost since it shipped?

PaHick

07-29-2005, 11:33 AM

PaHick

Sorry I'm not discussing this further with you after this comment. I don't care what your point is now, you'll just resort to childish remarks.

Childish remarks? Sorry, I dont believe I was being childish at all. Do you know how frustrating it is to argue a point with someone like you who thinks they know it all? Look back over your posts.
1. You said my #1 Example was a faulty product,WRONG.
2. You posted a supposed link to a judge dismissing a Glosk suit...WRONG AGAIN. The suit dismissed had nothing to do with Glock.

Id say arguing a point when you clearly didnt read what was posted by me or yourself is childish. I said "your right , im wrong" to alleviate the "pain" of arguing with you.

Is there a benefit to activation to the consumers?

I think djnes answered that one pretty good. Also, I think activation does keep the cost of MS products(among other companies who have implemented activation) down. No one can really say how much of an impact it has on price, but it would be logical to say that if MS didnt have activation in place prices would be higher. Why? Because with activation they know to a certain extent how many legal copies are being used, compared to how many machines may be in use(hope im explaining that right).