Vista "reduced functionality" is coming

I just about spit out my drink reading this over lunch:

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9035478

MS has an internet connected service for monitoring the licensing of its operating system software. This system had a serious outage two weeks ago. Now they're going to start disabling people's pc's that don't pass muster. Personally, I can't wait.

-q (with popcorn, ready to watch the fray)

**edited for factual inaccuracy in posting**

um it already happens.

And this wasn't expected? I've been waiting for this to happen and am surprised they didn't initiate this with XP.

And really, only those that have pirated copies truly have to worry. While I am sure some legit users will fall through the cracks they will be the vast minority and I'm sure will be easily fixed.

Yes- minority. And most legit users are prompted they aren't validated- and get it resolved ahead of time.

The only people that will complain about this are the people who pirate software- which this is designed to be a pain to anyways!

It's been BARELY more than two weeks since this: http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/39679

I can't see how that *WOULDN'T* affect legit users.

-q

qfour20 said:

It's been BARELY more than two weeks since this: http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/39679

I can't see how that *WOULDN'T* affect legit users.

Click to expand...

You must be blind then.

And since it's been two weeks- it hurts your argument more than helping it, as there haven't been tons of people complaining about it (Let's face it- [H] is probably one of the top computer forums out on the web- and if this was such a seriuos deal- we haven't seen it). Besides, Microsoft has no doubt fixed their problem by now (Unless they are opting to leave it as-is, which wouldn't be surprising).

Exactly.

Another pointless Vista bashing?

Not here,
Not now,
Not again!

You should have seen this coming since the release of XP... activation was just the beginning... and as long as your legit, I don't think your going to have any problems... and in the event you do, a phone call is all it's going to take to solve the problem...

Enjoy your popcorn

zacdl said:

Yes- minority. And most legit users are prompted they aren't validated- and get it resolved ahead of time.

The only people that will complain about this are the people who pirate software- which this is designed to be a pain to anyways!

Click to expand...

No, the only pepole who will complain are the legit users getting screwed by this not working %100 365, the pirates will have it patched and wont even notice it.

Hypernova said:

Another pointless Vista bashing?

Click to expand...

And a rather stupid article linked! Reduced functionality mode has been active in Vista since Vista was released. It's not something which is somehow suddenly appearing now. And it was way back around late 2005 / early 2006 that we first heard of the proposal to introduce it. Fair dinkum, some people live under rocks!

I was 'forcing' the deactivation/reduced funtionality of Vista installations when Vista was forst retail released, to test and report on it and the techniques people can use to access their files should they encounter the restriction.

Nothing new here, IMO. Move along.....

Catweazle said:

And a rather stupid article linked! Reduced functionality mode has been active in Vista since Vista was released. It's not something which is somehow suddenly appearing now. ...

Nothing new here, IMO. Move along.....

Click to expand...

Fair enough point, but I wasn't stating that this was new functionality. The article contains statements made by MS to its OEMs stating that this functionality was activated "as of this week". Any nonzero amount of false positive identifications are a grave consequence of the mindset that Microsoft has adopted. I've been following the "feature" set of vista since before its release as well. I just thought that Microsoft would have better sense than to actually enable this.

As stated above, the pirates will likely not be affected at all by this, but it concerns me greatly that a distinct possibility exists that legitimate users will be hurt. The only active installation of a Microsoft Product (XP) still extant in my home thinks it's not legit. The installation of XP performed by IBM on my laptop also decided that it was not legit. I gave up on the laptop and am using a different operating system. I just feel sorry for the "average user" that will blindly accept whatever dell / hp / whoever sells them on their machine.

At the same time, it will be very interesting to see if anything useful shakes out of this, such as showing unskilled users that have pirated copies of vista installed that there is a definite cost to not paying for commercial software.

Anyways, I'm going to take my popcorn and go back under my rock now.

-q

I don't hate Vista or other MS products, but their whole annoying "* Genuine Advantage" protections are stupid. It does not stop piracy and it majorly inconveniences legitimate users.

pxc said:

I don't hate Vista or other MS products, but their whole annoying "* Genuine Advantage" protections are stupid. It does not stop piracy and it majorly inconveniences legitimate users.

Click to expand...

Bingo. Those that would pirate still will. Activation did little to slow anybody down, same with this.

XOR != OR said:

Bingo. Those that would pirate still will. Activation did little to slow anybody down, same with this.

Click to expand...

So would you suggest a free-for-all? That's akin to saying that thieves will break in and rob people's houses anyway, so why bother locking the door? (Granted, in today's edition of "stretched metaphor" the lock isn't very effective, and more often than it should it also keeps the homeowner out...but shouldn't they at least try something?)

Personally, I'm fine with them trying to protect their intellectual property (IP)...so long as they learn from problems that arise and tweak the system to find the optimal balance between user friendliness and IP security.

Oh bullshit!

It's not meant to eradicate piracy, and it's not even reasonable to expect that it could or should. That's an impossible dream. The purpose of such mechanisms is to be a deterrent to casual piracy.

It doesn't "majorly inconvenience legitimate users" either. For the overwhelming bulk of people the worst impact it ever has is a small delay in the downloading/updating process! 'Hiccups' do occurr from time to time of course, but they are quite rare and they generally onl;y have impact on a weensy minority of users when they do occur.


To describe it as a "major inconvenience" is absolutely ludicrous!

pxc said:

I don't hate Vista or other MS products, but their whole annoying "* Genuine Advantage" protections are stupid. It does not stop piracy and it majorly inconveniences legitimate users.

Click to expand...

I believe it does stop it quite a bit. I have two friends that pirate windows and they have problems with their pc's that windows update would fix but they can't update. One of them got a keylogger and got his wow account hacked, an av scan with a couple av's didn't pick up anything, so he bought windows so he could reformat his pc to get rid of the keylogger.

I'm personally all for WGA, it installs once through windows update and you're done. I really don't see what all the fuss is about. I have had to call MS to reactivate windows because I made some major changes to my pc and it took 3 min on the phone with a person just entering a code. It's nothing to complain about unless you're a pirate.

Catweazle said:

Oh bullshit!

It's not meant to eradicate piracy, and it's not even reasonable to expect that it could or should. That's an impossible dream. The purpose of such mechanisms is to be a deterrent to casual piracy.

It doesn't "majorly inconvenience legitimate users" either. For the overwhelming bulk of people the worst impact it ever has is a small delay in the downloading/updating process! 'Hiccups' do occurr from time to time of course, but they are quite rare and they generally onl;y have impact on a weensy minority of users when they do occur.


To describe it as a "major inconvenience" is absolutely ludicrous!

Click to expand...

Well - they did have the server outage a few weeks back that did actually screw things up for a few days, and given the grace period MS allows, it's conceivable that a few legitimate Windows owners/leasers/whatever the correct term is with the license agreement were majorly inconvenienced. (I guess this is one of the hiccups you're referring to?)

LhasaCM said:

Well - they did have the server outage a few weeks back that did actually screw things up for a few days, and given the grace period MS allows, it's conceivable that a few legitimate Windows owners/leasers/whatever the correct term is with the license agreement were majorly inconvenienced. (I guess this is one of the hiccups you're referring to?)

Click to expand...

How were they majorly inconvenienced? All you have to do is call ms to get it sorted out, its like a 5 min call at most.

munkle said:

How were they majorly inconvenienced? All you have to do is call ms to get it sorted out, its like a 5 min call at most.

Click to expand...

There was a brief period a few weeks where MS was having server issues (I think it was at most a couple of days). During this time, there were just general problems with activation/WGA/etc. I know when I tried to activate a machine in that time period, it didn't work (and calling the phone number yielded a "sorry, we're having system issues, please try back"). Since I was operating within the grace period, it wasn't an issue for me. But conceivably it could've affected a handful of people drastically (as in reduced functionality mode) until the server issues were fully resolved.

LhasaCM said:

There was a brief period a few weeks where MS was having server issues (I think it was at most a couple of days). During this time, there were just general problems with activation/WGA/etc. I know when I tried to activate a machine in that time period, it didn't work (and calling the phone number yielded a "sorry, we're having system issues, please try back"). Since I was operating within the grace period, it wasn't an issue for me. But conceivably it could've affected a handful of people drastically (as in reduced functionality mode) until the server issues were fully resolved.

Click to expand...

Thats two different things though. One is wga which I am saying isn't a problem, the other is the outage and that is a problem for both MS and consumers so it shouldn't be held against them, Im sure it caused them alot more problems than it caused consumers. This is about Wga and reduced functionality, not about the outage. Wga is not a major inconvenience at all, minor at most.

Yeah, Lhasa, that's the sort of thing I'm referring to as a 'hiccup'. Events like that are so rare that they basically become an anomoly.


The only other validation-related issue I can recall which was of comparable magnitude in its impact was an issue very early in Validation lifespan, long before Vista was brought out. The problem cropped up for quite a lot of people who had machines made by large OEM assemblers. It related to the fact that the preinstalled Windows image deployed on the machines had the OEM assembler's volume licensing product code assigned in the registry, rather than the unique product key issued to the customer.

This more recent hiccup didn't impact on all Windows users, of course. My own machines rode it out without any issues at all, because they were set for automatic updating. The problems were only experienced by those people directly accessing the downloads section to obtain content which mandated an activation check.

munkle said:

Thats two different things though. One is wga which I am saying isn't a problem, the other is the outage and that is a problem for both MS and consumers so it shouldn't be held against them, Im sure it caused them alot more problems than it caused consumers. This is about Wga and reduced functionality, not about the outage. Wga is not a major inconvenience at all, minor at most.

Click to expand...

The problem is the two are inter-related. The failure to activate Windows (or, due to some system change, having to reactivate Windows but being unable to) can trip the "WGA detector" and lead to a false positive red flag.

I agree that normally it should not be an issue at all, and at most a minor inconvenience. WGA in of itself shouldn't pose any issues. I am just allowing that, in rare circumstances, it is conceivable that some people could be majorly inconvenienced when there are system problems. And then, when you have a few isolated issues, you get stories about how such and such is doom and gloom for the consumer.

Catweazle said:

Yeah, Lhasa, that's the sort of thing I'm referring to as a 'hiccup'. Events like that are so rare that they basically become an anomoly.


The only other validation-related issue I can recall which was of comparable magnitude in its impact was an issue very early in Validation lifespan, long before Vista was brought out. The problem cropped up for quite a lot of people who had machines made by large OEM assemblers. It related to the fact that the preinstalled Windows image deployed on the machines had the OEM assembler's volume licensing product code assigned in the registry, rather than the unique product key issued to the customer.

This more recent hiccup didn't impact on all Windows users, of course. My own machines rode it out without any issues at all, because they were set for automatic updating. The problems were only experienced by those people directly accessing the downloads section to obtain content which mandated an activation check.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it only takes a handful of legitimate problems combined with a few distorted facts to create a doom and gloom picture for everyone. It doesn't help if (and this is if the ComputerWorld story is true) MS uses the doom and gloom picture for its own purposes...

I'm curious how tolerant everyone posting here would be of these "minor inconveniences" when you desperately need information provided by medical imaging devices that happen to be affected by this issue? Most certainly, I haven't heard about it happening yet, but it scares the living bejeezus outta me.

To put it in another context... I have a requirement to respond to incidents using my work PC within an extremely narrow timeframe of when the issues are reported to me. If the tools that I need are not functional at the exact moment that I am called upon, I fail at doing my job. It is not acceptable in my position to say "my pc was hosed". It is my responsibility to identify potential threats such as this and avoid or mitigate the risks that they pose. The possibility that it will happen is slim to nil, but still a very real risk to be assessed.

What my biggest concern is with this issue is that I do not believe it is appropriate for an operating system vendor to lock a user out of functionality, regardless of what state the system thinks it is in. This is why HP-UX is explicitly not acceptable for use. How many times have you had to go in and set the system date because the licensing on your box was hosed, all the while, seconds of your Service Level Agreement are ticking away. Yes, it doesn't mean a hill of shit to the home user, but to businesses, it can mean serious money.

-q

In such a circumstance arose it'd be an indication that the corporate IT management wasn't up to scratch. Simple fact is that in such a circumstance the updating/downloading shouldn't be occurring whilst the critical work is being conducted, and if it is then the network management is being poorly arranged and supervised. If such a system even rebooted during use because an update was being installed it'd be an indictment of the IT crew!

To all you guys who say that this isn't a problem, and people should just shut up about it - the WGA failure demonstrably was a problem, and did affect people in a very real way. I know of 3 people (myself included) who objected to the fact that it was even possible for Microsoft to remotely disable your machine. One of those bought a laptop 30 days prior to the issue, and then disappeared on holiday (he hadn't activated it because the activation tool couldn't see the MS servers via his net connection for some reason). Came back the weekend that WGA went to hell, and found that he couldn't use his computer at all.

He asked me to put Linux on it, which I did - and he's been perfectly happy (and, to make the point, completely functional) with it since.

I make a point of always running legal software on my machine - always have, always will. Trouble is, if somebody else's screwup even has a chance of mucking up my ability to work (and it's something that I won't be able to work around), I'll object. I don't care what the odds are. If my net connection dies, I can go and use somebody else's. If the power goes out, I can go a mile up the road and plug in somewhere. If software screws up, I can reinstall. If WGA decides my machine isn't licensed? Well, I sorta have to sit around waiting for Microsoft to play ball and fix it.

Sure, if you only use your computer for playing games and showing off your latest bit of desktop bling, you can just go to the fridge, get a beer and vegetate in front of the TV. It becomes far more serious when it impacts your ability to pay the rent.

Lest we forget, when they implemented XP activation, MS said that they would categorically not make the assumption that you were trying to game the system - innocent until proven guilty. The last 3 or 4 calls to MS activation lines that I've had took considerably longer than before because of the intrusive questions and suspicious nature of the phone ops, purely because I was reinstalling machines for the 7th or 8th time (regardless, it seems, of the fact that it was the same hardware every time).

They also said that they wouldn't be using it to deactivate machines - "Windows Genuine Advantage" was so named because if you had a valid license, you could get hold of all sorts of extra software available only to genuine Microsoft customers. What did we get? A bunch of extra screensavers. Yay. Seems that, in the face of doing some work to add an incentive, Microsoft just said, "Ah, sack it. Let's just turn their machines off. They'll get the picture."

Not that they'll be particularly bothered about losing 3 customers, of course (plus my office, which is now moving to Linux on the basis that they saw what happened and the potential consequences if there was a worse problem). I'm not going to try to turn it all into "this is the end of Microsoft", because it clearly isn't. It may, on the other hand, be a reason to stop and consider your alternatives. If you have to work with your machine, it could be worth at least having a second OS on your box, just in case there's a worse disaster next time.

:LJ: said:

If WGA decides my machine isn't licensed? Well, I sorta have to sit around waiting for Microsoft to play ball and fix it.

Click to expand...

Bunkum! Reduced functionality mode means that it has deactivated, and all you need do is activate again using the call centre. In the exceptionally unlikely event that a machine in productive use gets caught in such circumstances, down-time is quite minimal. Given that this specific part of your complaint is the basis upon which the entire argument is built, you're clearly over-reacting to a significant extent!

It becomes far more serious when it impacts your ability to pay the rent.

Click to expand...

I'm a freelance IT journalist, friend. The machine and the internet is my workplace, livelihood and sole means of communication with the people who meet the invoices I send them. Hell, it's even the means of submitting accounts for payment and conducting the financial affairs.

Should it 'go missing' in this way it is only a brief delay and a toll-free telephone call. I'm at more risk of loss of income from power outages! Much more!

Not that they'll be particularly bothered about losing 3 customers, of course (plus my office, which is now moving to Linux on the basis that they saw what happened and the potential consequences if there was a worse problem). I'm not going to try to turn it all into "this is the end of Microsoft", because it clearly isn't. It may, on the other hand, be a reason to stop and consider your alternatives. If you have to work with your machine, it could be worth at least having a second OS on your box, just in case there's a worse disaster next time.

Click to expand...

Oh wow! I sincerely hope those people have the training, expertise and preparedness to work within a different platform/environment, or else their reaction, after seeing your alarmist response to such a trivial situation, could end up being a costly one.

Catweazle said:

Bunkum! Reduced functionality mode means that it has deactivated, and all you need do is activate again using the call centre. In the exceptionally unlikely event that a machine in productive use gets caught in such circumstances, down-time is quite minimal. Given that this specific part of your complaint is the basis upon which the entire argument is built, you're clearly over-reacting to a significant extent!

Click to expand...

I probably didn't word it right...I personally don't want somebody to be able to deactivate my machine at all. I didn't say this was the "right way" for anyone to think; just my personal views and experience.

Catweazle said:

Should it 'go missing' in this way it is only a brief delay and a toll-free telephone call. I'm at more risk of loss of income from power outages! Much more!

Click to expand...

Ah, yes...but this is an avoidable risk for many people. Power outages aren't.

Catweazle said:

Oh wow! I sincerely hope those people have the training, expertise and preparedness to work within a different platform/environment, or else their reaction, after seeing your alarmist response to such a trivial situation, could end up being a costly one.

Click to expand...

It's not alarmist - it was carefully considered, and there was a full cost-benefit analysis; believe it or not, I was the one playing Devil's advocate and siding with Microsoft on that one; not for any love for their software, just because I wanted to make sure everyone was up for the disruption.

The fact is, for many things (particularly in business), Microsoft software isn't even the best or most appropriate kit for the job at hand. Add this to the increasing level of intrusion from WGA (the part of my post you omitted) and the fact that this level of implementation is unknown (but likely to increase) in the future, and people start to wonder whether it's worth it.

Again, just to make it clear - this is my experience and opinion only. Given that this is an enthusiast board, though....I wonder how many of the people here actually paid for...say...Office? If someone here had a hooky copy of Office on their machine that got deactivated by WGA in the future, would they immediately rush out and buy a copy? Unlikely. What if Adobe does a deal with MS to piggy-back on WGA? Would everyone rush out to splurge their cash on a license? Or would they look at alternatives? I'm not saying everybody would, but you'd certainly get a fair number of people opting for more cost-effective alternatives.

Catweazle said:

LOL!

That's a really 'mealy-mouthed' way of saying "This is a shit-storm about stuff-all, and you're all a pack of dickheads for being sucked in by it!"

Click to expand...

Eh...people's opinions are based on the information available to them, so if all people have are the facts about a few incidents and stories drumming up those incidents, coupled with a news article that has a Microsoft representative jumping on the bandwagon and issuing a veiled threat to people about this issue, it's perfectly logical to assume the doom and gloom picture. That's the beauty and the problem of a world of imperfect information.

wrong url

Microsoft was quick to debunk this e-mail warning of a Black Screen of Death. A Microsoft representative told Wired News "the reporter received inaccurate information," and that the company has not rolled out any updates to Windows Vista's anti-piracy platform.

Click to expand...

so um.. what exactly happened?

my vista (all 3 of them infact) has been just fine, never knew there was an outage..

probably file this one right next to the "BioShock installs a RootKit" folder in level of hyperbole..

doesn't affect me. me = legit

H-street said:

so um.. what exactly happened?

Click to expand...

An Australian IT journalist, who is normally quite accurate with the stuff he writes for publication, unwisely misreported a hoax email message. The article he wrote, informed by the bogus message, suggested that a 'new' mechanism had been activated within Windows Vista, and that it would make non-genuine Windows machines 'blackscreen'.

It was rubbish, of course, based upon the Reduced Functionality mode which gives you no Aero, no desktop background, no taskbar and no Start Orb should Vista deactivate following a Genuine Advantage check failure and the failure to reactivate afterwards.


Of course, as such things are wont, the article was widely reported on tech sites and tech forums all over the place, where MS-bashing geeks like to gather. I'm sure the whole silly scenario has been quite an embarrassment to the bloke who parked it all off by unwisely writing the article that he did!

LhasaCM said:

Eh...people's opinions are based on the information available to them, so if all people have are the facts about a few incidents and stories drumming up those incidents, coupled with a news article that has a Microsoft representative jumping on the bandwagon and issuing a veiled threat to people about this issue, it's perfectly logical to assume the doom and gloom picture. That's the beauty and the problem of a world of imperfect information.

Click to expand...

I just had to reply to this because it's been a while since I read anyone make a rational opinion. Kudos to you! Unfortunately I've seen couple friends fall into believing only information they read and stubbornly fail to realize their blind mistake. If anyone could give me a reasonable explanation then it counts towards reevaluation of my understanding, and good information is key. What ever happened to critical thinking? My guess some people never had it and never will have it. Propagandas will never die even if you educate everyone what it is.

LhasaCM and myself have been making very similar statements in this thread, but this bit of what you cite and laud raises questions:

coupled with a news article that has a Microsoft representative jumping on the bandwagon and issuing a veiled threat to people about this issue

Click to expand...

Simple fact is the 'Reduced Function Mode' has been active in Vista since day dot, so we very much need to question the varacity of the article. It's stretching credibility a tad too far to imagine a MS spokesperson suggesting that a feature active from the outset hasn't yet been activated, so we're left wondering if the bloke really did speak with an MS spokesperson at all

my entire problem is that it ultimately leaves the functionality of Windows Vista at the discretion of Microsoft. Honestly, what is to stop them from disabling the activations for every single Windows Vista installation when they roll out their next OS? And, yes, I know that such a "blackout" wouldn't be instantaneous. But it would happen within a few days since I think the new WGA services phone home every 72 hours or so (someone check that, I may be off on the polling window).

I can hear it now from the poor consumers: "My PC is not working right" -- "Update to the latest Microsoft OS and all will be well."

While I didn't like it, I understood the fundamentals of Activation. It was essentially a one-shot deal. Either your PC activated or it didn't. But once it activated, you were good to go. Now, we're getting to the point of turning over our ability to use our computers to some computer out there in the cloud. I respect Microsoft's need to deter piracy. But, surely they can do it without this.

I am currently using a corporate site license copy of Windows XP x64 that I own so activation doesnt even enter into my equation. But, I'll likely move to Linux so that I don't have to deal with this because even Apple could take the stance that Microsoft is and lock me out of my own Mac remotely.

svet-am said:

my entire problem is that it ultimately leaves the functionality of Windows Vista at the discretion of Microsoft. Honestly, what is to stop them from disabling the activations for every single Windows Vista installation when they roll out their next OS?

Click to expand...

Do you really not see how ridiculously 'tinfoil hat' a fear such as that is? Such a scenario would not ever eventuate because, straight and simple, it's about the only thing which could happen which would end up with an outcome in which the 'PC world' isn't a 'Windows world'. Should MS even contemplate trying such a move, to ensure its acceptance amongst their customer base they'd need to reduce the asking price for the new version to a pittance. They'd never be able to even recoup their development costs. It's a silly suggestion which isn't even a remote possibility, really!

qfour20 said:

I'm curious how tolerant everyone posting here would be of these "minor inconveniences" when you desperately need information provided by medical imaging devices that happen to be affected by this issue? Most certainly, I haven't heard about it happening yet, but it scares the living bejeezus outta me.

Click to expand...

No one would be stupid enough to put an MS product on such a critical system that's why

Catweazle said:

Simple fact is the 'Reduced Function Mode' has been active in Vista since day dot, so we very much need to question the varacity of the article. It's stretching credibility a tad too far to imagine a MS spokesperson suggesting that a feature active from the outset hasn't yet been activated, so we're left wondering if the bloke really did speak with an MS spokesperson at all

Click to expand...

Yeah...I got lazy in some of the posts and didn't always include the "if the story is event true" caveat. Of course, yesterday MS came out and let everyone know that nothing has changed (contrary to what the article implied)...so it's time to just move along...