WGA now compulsory for getting Windows updates ???

Chris

Have MS now made installation of WGA compulsory, if you want to use the
Windows Update web site?

I just tried the update site and got the following message.

(Oh, and yes, my copy of XP is 100% legal. I just previously declined to
install all the WGA stuff)

------------
Software Upgrade for Some Windows Components Required

To use Microsoft Update, you must first install the latest version of
some Windows components. This will allow your computer to work with these
new features on the site:

Details

Windows Genuine Advantage Validation Tool (KB892130)
1.1 MB , less than 1 minute
The Windows Genuine Advantage Validation Tool enables you to verify that
your copy of Microsoft Windows is genuine. The tool validates your
Windows installation by checking Windows Product Identification and
Product Activation status.
---------

Alias

Chris wrote:
> Have MS now made installation of WGA compulsory, if you want to use the
> Windows Update web site?
>
> I just tried the update site and got the following message.
>
> (Oh, and yes, my copy of XP is 100% legal. I just previously declined to
> install all the WGA stuff)
>
> ------------
> Software Upgrade for Some Windows Components Required
>
> To use Microsoft Update, you must first install the latest version of
> some Windows components. This will allow your computer to work with these
> new features on the site:
>
> Details
>
> Windows Genuine Advantage Validation Tool (KB892130)
> 1.1 MB , less than 1 minute
> The Windows Genuine Advantage Validation Tool enables you to verify that
> your copy of Microsoft Windows is genuine. The tool validates your
> Windows installation by checking Windows Product Identification and
> Product Activation status.
> ---------
>

Seems as though MS is bound and determined to WGA itself out of
business. I plan to use Auto Update this weekend for the updates as I
refuse to install WGA or any of its flavors.

The ironic thing is that this is of no benefit to the end user at all
and just serves to make customers angry at being forced to prove that
one is not a pirate.

Alias

Alias

Chris wrote:
> Have MS now made installation of WGA compulsory, if you want to use the
> Windows Update web site?
>
> I just tried the update site and got the following message.
>
> (Oh, and yes, my copy of XP is 100% legal. I just previously declined to
> install all the WGA stuff)
>
> ------------
> Software Upgrade for Some Windows Components Required
>
> To use Microsoft Update, you must first install the latest version of
> some Windows components. This will allow your computer to work with these
> new features on the site:
>
> Details
>
> Windows Genuine Advantage Validation Tool (KB892130)
> 1.1 MB , less than 1 minute
> The Windows Genuine Advantage Validation Tool enables you to verify that
> your copy of Microsoft Windows is genuine. The tool validates your
> Windows installation by checking Windows Product Identification and
> Product Activation status.
> ---------
>

Seems as though MS is bound and determined to WGA itself out of
business. I plan to use Auto Update this weekend for the updates as I
refuse to install WGA or any of its flavors.

The ironic thing is that this is of no benefit to the end user at all
and just serves to make customers angry at being forced to prove that
one is not a pirate.

Alias

Maincat

"Alias" <alsoknownas@maskedandanonymous.ru> wrote in message
news:OOgUj2drHHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Chris wrote:
>> Have MS now made installation of WGA compulsory, if you want to use the
>> Windows Update web site?
>>
>> I just tried the update site and got the following message.
>>
>> (Oh, and yes, my copy of XP is 100% legal. I just previously declined to
>> install all the WGA stuff)
>>
>> ------------
>> Software Upgrade for Some Windows Components Required
>>
>> To use Microsoft Update, you must first install the latest version of
>> some Windows components. This will allow your computer to work with these
>> new features on the site:
>>
>> Details
>>
>> Windows Genuine Advantage Validation Tool (KB892130)
>> 1.1 MB , less than 1 minute The Windows Genuine Advantage Validation Tool
>> enables you to verify that
>> your copy of Microsoft Windows is genuine. The tool validates your
>> Windows installation by checking Windows Product Identification and
>> Product Activation status.
>> ---------
>>
>
> Seems as though MS is bound and determined to WGA itself out of business.
> I plan to use Auto Update this weekend for the updates as I refuse to
> install WGA or any of its flavors.
>
> The ironic thing is that this is of no benefit to the end user at all and
> just serves to make customers angry at being forced to prove that one is
> not a pirate.
>
> Alias

Really, I'm not trying to be funny, but I don't see what the problem is.
It's in all our interests to get rid of piracy, isn't it? So I download
WGA, so what? I get the updates. Please sincerely convince me of the
problem.

Maincat

"Alias" <alsoknownas@maskedandanonymous.ru> wrote in message
news:OOgUj2drHHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Chris wrote:
>> Have MS now made installation of WGA compulsory, if you want to use the
>> Windows Update web site?
>>
>> I just tried the update site and got the following message.
>>
>> (Oh, and yes, my copy of XP is 100% legal. I just previously declined to
>> install all the WGA stuff)
>>
>> ------------
>> Software Upgrade for Some Windows Components Required
>>
>> To use Microsoft Update, you must first install the latest version of
>> some Windows components. This will allow your computer to work with these
>> new features on the site:
>>
>> Details
>>
>> Windows Genuine Advantage Validation Tool (KB892130)
>> 1.1 MB , less than 1 minute The Windows Genuine Advantage Validation Tool
>> enables you to verify that
>> your copy of Microsoft Windows is genuine. The tool validates your
>> Windows installation by checking Windows Product Identification and
>> Product Activation status.
>> ---------
>>
>
> Seems as though MS is bound and determined to WGA itself out of business.
> I plan to use Auto Update this weekend for the updates as I refuse to
> install WGA or any of its flavors.
>
> The ironic thing is that this is of no benefit to the end user at all and
> just serves to make customers angry at being forced to prove that one is
> not a pirate.
>
> Alias

Really, I'm not trying to be funny, but I don't see what the problem is.
It's in all our interests to get rid of piracy, isn't it? So I download
WGA, so what? I get the updates. Please sincerely convince me of the
problem.

Maincat

"Filthy McNasty" <filthy-mcnasty@here.now> wrote in message
news:Xns994EC7D3481F6filthymcnastybigfoot@207.46.2 48.16...
> Using at least one appendage, the entity known in this space-time
> continuum
> as "Maincat" <steve@nospam.org.uk> revealed in news:uNarqferHHA.3500
> @TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl:
>
>> Really, I'm not trying to be funny, but I don't see what the problem is.
>> It's in all our interests to get rid of piracy, isn't it? So I download
>> WGA, so what? I get the updates. Please sincerely convince me of the
>> problem.
>>
>
> The problem is the sheer impertinence. If activation is not worth a damn,
> why do we have to activate? And having done so, can they not just refer
> back to their activation database - not much point activating unless there
> is one? And yes, I do realise that a large part - the only part? - of
> activation is hardware related. Can't have us loading XP onto all the
> household/office computers. Fair enough. But surely all they have to do is
> check with the disk-based activation files, the .DBL ones? If they don't
> match a M$ database, THEN insist on WGA. Otherwise do us the courtesy of
> trusting us

OK, I'm getting closer to understanding this. Some thoughts.

I don't know of a money making company that trusts it's customers. Banks
don't, stores don't and the list goes on. If they did, all the cameras
would go for a start. Trust is a commodity in very short supply in our
society. I wish it was different, but it isn't.

Activation - I've never been sure about Activation. Don't think MS thought
that one through. MS aren't the only ones to verify software usage by
online methods - my Internet Security does the same for example.

Finally, I guess an answer to this is to go open source. No Activation, WGA
or other methods since there's no need - different philosophy at play. I
guess that until market share takes a really big hit, MS will continue to
employ these methods.

Sorry if this post rambles a bit - thinking with my fingers!

Maincat

"Filthy McNasty" <filthy-mcnasty@here.now> wrote in message
news:Xns994EC7D3481F6filthymcnastybigfoot@207.46.2 48.16...
> Using at least one appendage, the entity known in this space-time
> continuum
> as "Maincat" <steve@nospam.org.uk> revealed in news:uNarqferHHA.3500
> @TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl:
>
>> Really, I'm not trying to be funny, but I don't see what the problem is.
>> It's in all our interests to get rid of piracy, isn't it? So I download
>> WGA, so what? I get the updates. Please sincerely convince me of the
>> problem.
>>
>
> The problem is the sheer impertinence. If activation is not worth a damn,
> why do we have to activate? And having done so, can they not just refer
> back to their activation database - not much point activating unless there
> is one? And yes, I do realise that a large part - the only part? - of
> activation is hardware related. Can't have us loading XP onto all the
> household/office computers. Fair enough. But surely all they have to do is
> check with the disk-based activation files, the .DBL ones? If they don't
> match a M$ database, THEN insist on WGA. Otherwise do us the courtesy of
> trusting us

OK, I'm getting closer to understanding this. Some thoughts.

I don't know of a money making company that trusts it's customers. Banks
don't, stores don't and the list goes on. If they did, all the cameras
would go for a start. Trust is a commodity in very short supply in our
society. I wish it was different, but it isn't.

Activation - I've never been sure about Activation. Don't think MS thought
that one through. MS aren't the only ones to verify software usage by
online methods - my Internet Security does the same for example.

Finally, I guess an answer to this is to go open source. No Activation, WGA
or other methods since there's no need - different philosophy at play. I
guess that until market share takes a really big hit, MS will continue to
employ these methods.

Sorry if this post rambles a bit - thinking with my fingers!

nl

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 20:08:13 +0100, "Maincat" <steve@nospam.org.uk>
wrote:

>
>"Filthy McNasty" <filthy-mcnasty@here.now> wrote in message
>news:Xns994EC7D3481F6filthymcnastybigfoot@207.46. 248.16...
>> Using at least one appendage, the entity known in this space-time
>> continuum
>> as "Maincat" <steve@nospam.org.uk> revealed in news:uNarqferHHA.3500
>> @TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl:
>>
>>> Really, I'm not trying to be funny, but I don't see what the problem is.
>>> It's in all our interests to get rid of piracy, isn't it? So I download
>>> WGA, so what? I get the updates. Please sincerely convince me of the
>>> problem.
>>>
>>
>> The problem is the sheer impertinence. I

>OK, I'm getting closer to understanding this. Some thoughts.
>
>I don't know of a money making company that trusts it's customers. Banks
>don't, stores don't and the list goes on. If they did, all the cameras
>would go for a start. Trust is a commodity in very short supply in our
>society. I wish it was different, but it isn't.
>
>Activation - I've never been sure about Activation. Don't think MS thought
>that one through. MS aren't the only ones to verify software usage by
>online methods - my Internet Security does the same for example.
>
>Finally, I guess an answer to this is to go open source. No Activation, WGA
>or other methods since there's no need - different philosophy at play. I
>guess that until market share takes a really big hit, MS will continue to
>employ these methods.
>
>Sorry if this post rambles a bit - thinking with my fingers!
>
>
I have a theory about this. I think there's a huge department at MS
dedicated to 'revenue protection' and they justify their existence by
maximisng the revenue from XP activations. As long as it looks like
they make more money hassling punters with WGA than it costs to run
the department (with its canteen and its gym and its carpark full of
Mercs and BMWs) they will go on and on and on and every time we want
to switch the bloody machine on we will be asked to verify the
installation YET AGAIN. Every single patch for the last few months
has come with WGA asking if this is a legit copy of Windows. YES IT
SODDING IS I TOLD YOU THAT YESTERDAY AND YOU STILL HAD TO CHECK FOR
YOURSELF AND NOW YOU'RE ASKING ME AGAIN.

And of course legit customers get more and more pissed off and
irritated because people with cracked versions don't get this grief.
It's like the copyright warnings on DVD you can't skip - the only
people who don't have to sit through the boilerplate and the threats
and hectoring and lecturing and fingerwagging are THE BLOODY PIRATES.

phew. Sorry, rant over.

nl

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 20:08:13 +0100, "Maincat" <steve@nospam.org.uk>
wrote:

>
>"Filthy McNasty" <filthy-mcnasty@here.now> wrote in message
>news:Xns994EC7D3481F6filthymcnastybigfoot@207.46. 248.16...
>> Using at least one appendage, the entity known in this space-time
>> continuum
>> as "Maincat" <steve@nospam.org.uk> revealed in news:uNarqferHHA.3500
>> @TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl:
>>
>>> Really, I'm not trying to be funny, but I don't see what the problem is.
>>> It's in all our interests to get rid of piracy, isn't it? So I download
>>> WGA, so what? I get the updates. Please sincerely convince me of the
>>> problem.
>>>
>>
>> The problem is the sheer impertinence. I

>OK, I'm getting closer to understanding this. Some thoughts.
>
>I don't know of a money making company that trusts it's customers. Banks
>don't, stores don't and the list goes on. If they did, all the cameras
>would go for a start. Trust is a commodity in very short supply in our
>society. I wish it was different, but it isn't.
>
>Activation - I've never been sure about Activation. Don't think MS thought
>that one through. MS aren't the only ones to verify software usage by
>online methods - my Internet Security does the same for example.
>
>Finally, I guess an answer to this is to go open source. No Activation, WGA
>or other methods since there's no need - different philosophy at play. I
>guess that until market share takes a really big hit, MS will continue to
>employ these methods.
>
>Sorry if this post rambles a bit - thinking with my fingers!
>
>
I have a theory about this. I think there's a huge department at MS
dedicated to 'revenue protection' and they justify their existence by
maximisng the revenue from XP activations. As long as it looks like
they make more money hassling punters with WGA than it costs to run
the department (with its canteen and its gym and its carpark full of
Mercs and BMWs) they will go on and on and on and every time we want
to switch the bloody machine on we will be asked to verify the
installation YET AGAIN. Every single patch for the last few months
has come with WGA asking if this is a legit copy of Windows. YES IT
SODDING IS I TOLD YOU THAT YESTERDAY AND YOU STILL HAD TO CHECK FOR
YOURSELF AND NOW YOU'RE ASKING ME AGAIN.

And of course legit customers get more and more pissed off and
irritated because people with cracked versions don't get this grief.
It's like the copyright warnings on DVD you can't skip - the only
people who don't have to sit through the boilerplate and the threats
and hectoring and lecturing and fingerwagging are THE BLOODY PIRATES.

phew. Sorry, rant over.

frodo@theshire.net

Hold on folks, this is nothing new: all that they did was make a new
version of the genuine checker (legitcheckcontrol.dll), and WU wants to
update that before it will proceed. They've done that DOZENS of times in
the past. This DLL is not the same as the WGA _NOTIFICATION_ beast, which
is still offered when you do a CUSTOM update, and you can still uncheck
that so you don't have to get it (if you do an EXPRESS or AUTOMATIC update
you will get it, just as before, since it's considered "critical").

NOTHING HAS CHANGED, just the dll's version number.