Windows Activation Technologies Update for Windows 7.

Here's my problem with this whole concept: What if you only had "usage rights" to the front door of your house and if the key not only suddenly doesn't fit, but trying to pick the lock might set everything in the house on fire? Is it wrong to decide to alter the lock so that that can't happen again?

I can tell a few stories about trying to reactivate windows xp after WGA shut it down because I upgraded hardware. Not to mention the level of professionalism of the 1st tier of call center monkeys I got connected to.

madtownidiot said:

Here's my problem with this whole concept: What if you only had "usage rights" to the front door of your house and if the key not only suddenly doesn't fit, but trying to pick the lock might set everything in the house on fire? Is it wrong to decide to alter the lock so that that can't happen again?

This comparison is misguided for a ton of reasons, starting with the most obvious one - nobody pirates your house and sells it for $6 in a Chinese street bazaar. But there are perfectly understandable arguments against how MS is approaching this. I refuse to install this update. I don't trust the company enough, based on their history with XP. It's got nothing to do with phoning home without my permission. My software could be merged with Bill Gates colon 24/7 and I wouldn't care. Omegatron's comments validated MS's incompetence with this stuff.

The fact that MS said this update is totally voluntary and then (apparently) make it totally mandatory with SP1 would be total BS. Is that actually the case and I missed the link stating this?

Colonel Travis said:

madtownidiot said:

Here's my problem with this whole concept: What if you only had "usage rights" to the front door of your house and if the key not only suddenly doesn't fit, but trying to pick the lock might set everything in the house on fire? Is it wrong to decide to alter the lock so that that can't happen again?

This comparison is misguided for a ton of reasons, starting with the most obvious one - nobody pirates your house and sells it for $6 in a Chinese street bazaar. But there are perfectly understandable arguments against how MS is approaching this. I refuse to install this update. I don't trust the company enough, based on their history with XP. It's got nothing to do with phoning home without my permission. My software could be merged with Bill Gates colon 24/7 and I wouldn't care. Omegatron's comments validated MS's incompetence with this stuff.

The fact that MS said this update is totally voluntary and then (apparently) make it totally mandatory with SP1 would be total BS. Is that actually the case and I missed the link stating this?

Not even close. My income depends on the files stored in my computer, which are worth much more than the $180 I paid to microsoft. The operating system is just the door to those files, and if someone were to copy my product key and post it with an illegal torrent that is then downloaded by 10,000 people, I'll have to waste my time on the phone with Microsoft to get windows reactivated if I need to reinstall windows.

WAT cannot determine whether windows was installed from a legitimate source, and there have already been cases which prove this

madtownidiot said:

Not even close. My income depends on the files stored in my computer, which are worth much more than the $180 I paid to microsoft. The operating system is just the door to those files, and if someone were to copy my product key and post it with an illegal torrent that is then downloaded by 10,000 people, I'll have to waste my time on the phone with Microsoft to get windows reactivated if I need to reinstall windows.

WAT cannot determine whether windows was installed from a legitimate source, and there have already been cases which prove this

My income depends totally on the files I keep on my computer, too. If your copy of Windows or mine comes up not genuine because of this new WAT policy, do those those files suddenly become inaccessible? No. If someone steals my wallet, I have to get on the phone with a bunch of companies, not just one. And I'll probably lose more than access to my wallet. I could easily lose money and maybe even my identity, which is far worse than what I stand to lose if someone happens to steal my 7 product key. Anyone can steal anything. I've had my car broken into twice, that's also a pain in the @ss. I cut my thumb yesterday splitting firewood. Life is one big fat riskfest.

That link you gave had zero complaints dealing with new WAT. Maybe I missed them if they're there, sorry. I'm not saying you're wrong, all I'm saying is that I saw no proof from that page to back up what you assert about WAT. But let's say it's true in every single case. The problem that most everyone here has (including me) is not with the first check. It's with the repeated checks, because MS has no history of being able to pull this sort of thing off with minimal hassles.

I think we pretty much agree about MS's ineptness, and I appreciate the debate. Also enjoying reading everyone else's comments because this stuff is a big deal for everyone involved - MS, customers, ye pirates. It's just that I don't consider what they're doing as an attack on my sovereignty. I'm not installing the update. Case closed. When SP1 comes out I'll deal with that then.

I would not have a problem at all with it if microsoft can guarantee it will not affect anyone who purchased a genuine copy of windows legitimately, but they can't. I don't distinguish between WGA and WAT. The new name is simply a polishing of the same old turd. It's a sore point with me, having lost a few irate customers who had to have windows reinstalled to fix their problems only to have WGA invalidate the install a couple weeks or months later.

Just got though reinstalling my laptop...

If it's true that this will be included in the final version of SP1. I'm either 1) not going to install it. or 2) Take a crash course in hacking service packs.

I am not amused by the fact that the update did something weird at the end of installation, did not show up in my list of Hot fixes/updates, and that I couldn't find a way to verify it's existence...

FZ21Z said:

jimbo45 said:

Hi there
1) You aren't always in a position to be able to connect to the internet -- often for quite extended periods.

90 days is 3 months, and I don't think I've ever gone 3 days without connecting to the net.

jimbo45 said:

2) SECURE networks often do not want machines to (or even ensure that they can't) connect to ANY external network - Internet or otherwise.

So how would you go about updating the system?

jimbo45 said:

3) You might not want to have an Internet connected machine for all sorts of reasons at home for instance

You might not need it connected at all times, but again, how would you update the system?

jimbo45 said:

but it's the "Phoning Home" bit - especially at random intervals that I think is a STEP TOO FAR.

It's all about perspective I guess, as it's easy to put emphasis on it "phoning home" as being something sinister, when all it will do is download the latest definitions and scan the system, which took less than a minute using the online the tool.

Hi there
often on Secured networks you don't NEED to update the system very frequently if at all between Service pack releases -- since you aren't exposed to external networks you don't need to install "security" updates - and the way of updating is to re-install the whole OS after say a service pack has been issued.

It's VERY RARE that the OS will crash when running the usually limited set of applications on a SECURED NETWORK. These are totally different from "Day to Day" LANS even in a corporate environment.

Another way of course is to update another NON SECURED SERVER -- then create an image for your secured server and deploy it MANUALLY i.e via a usb / dvd.

Cheers
jimbo