Ed Bott's Microsoft Challenge--2/22/01

If Microsoft cannot allow people to just install the product and license it via a Select agreement (or any other form of Enterprise license) then take up will be much lower.

Having to license workstations individually will add time to rollout strategies and may even stop people being able to clone desktops, which is certainly my prefered method of desktop rollout. Also what about places where internet access is NOT granted to the desktop, just think if the support issues involved with actually licensing the operating system.

Yet another example of Microsoft making things difficult for business with yet ANOTHER new cosmetic improvement on an existing product.

Microsoft must feel pretty good about their position in the market at this point. Product activation schemes have been frustrating to deal with on many levels, particularly when it involves the operating system.

Microsoft will be making a mistake if it forces this type of scheme on users. They seem to be trying to tie all their products to specific devices rather than to a specific user or organization. IT staff will demand the freedom to install the OS on any machine they want to - withoutMicrosoft's approval. One license per copy of the software is all that should be required.

They did not get to market ownership by restricting access in this way, and will surely be losing a lot of friends if they do.
Friends in IT are not that easy to come by, and making the rollout of OSes more difficult could finally spur the backlash that Microsoft fears most.

It's funny, y'know. Microsoft is so
anti-piracy, yet they owe some amount of
their current monopolies to piracy. If
nobody had ever been able to get illegal
copies of DOS, Windows, or Office, I think it
would have helped competitors who might have
had less expensive offerings in these
markets... at least in the home/small
business area. Now that they have a solid
monopoly, they figure that they can try to
kill off piracy.

I doubt that this will affect the buying
decisions ofmany enterprises. Sure, it
will piss off the administrators who have to
start worrying about giving internet access
to machines that normally wouldn't have it in
order to register, and who will have to keep
track of the subscriptions for every piece of
MS software they own. However, upper
management at these companies will not take
these annoyances into consideration when time
comes to upgrade the OS. If they are
already running NT, they will run XP.

However, I do think that this will give Linux
a push in the start-up sphere. If I was
about to start a new company and had the
choice between paying through the nose for an
OS that is going to be an continual
annoyance, or running Linux, I'd choose Linux.

For quite some time now, Microsoft has maintained several different distributions for most of its products (Retail, OEM, and corporate volume distributions). The volume distributions were always available only with a volume license aggreement already in place between your company and Microsoft. Microsoft has claimed that their new "product activation" scheme will not be implemented within their volume distributions, like SELECT. They also allude to making volume distributions available to those with volume license agreements with as few as 5 product licenses. I haven't seen this in practice yet, but if these claims are completely correct then there shouldn't be too many issues involved with "deploying" their products in a corporate environment. The biggest issue companies will have is in negotiating their volume licensing with Microsoft "up front", in order to be able to take advantage of the volume distributions.

Our "company" (a city government) has had a volume agreement inplace with Microsoft for quite a while, one in which we have had access to their SELECT software distributions. These distributions completely embed all required licensing information, so installs from them never require license key inputs.

Withall that said regarding corporate distributions, I really beleive that the activation scheme will seriously and adversely affect use of Microsoft products for those at home, either for personal or home office use. A private developer will be hard pressed to maintain their composure when having to deal with justifying their environment changes to Microsoft support.

For myself, if my employers won't provide me with Microsoft software that they license under their volume agreement, then I'll be working more heavily with alternative software distributions like LINUX and its associated open-source add-ons.

Thanks, -Ewing

Microsoft is trying to stop piracy single-handed. Good for them. They're also alienating more and more businesses with schemes like this. It seems to mean we will no longer be able to purchase licenses per seat, and register en mass. No big deal, but what about our usual software deployment method - ghosting?
Even home users may no longer want Microsoft products if they have to register each MS OS and app separately. (Have you sat on hold lately? and is it a toll-free number?)
It will definitely stop me from running right out & getting the newest MS product.

I think we couldn't blame Microsoft for this plan. Their programmers and system engineers have worked hard inventing new products that offer user friendliness more and more than ever. For some degree we have to admit that Microsoft has contributed to what IT world has become now, where common users are able to use the product with ease. Nowadays, we don't have to be a nerd in order to make a website or a simple database.

It's high time for Microsoft to protect their products from piracy and more than that, it's high time for them to protect their existence in the IT industry.

Yes, it's also been well known that Microsoft seems to always release a product that is "not finished" yet, and where they use their users as "the largest beta tester" in the world. But, as far as I can remember, Microsoft always manage to follow this up by releasing service packs or patches to fix the problem. And considering the vast aspect of environtment where the products are used it's almost impossible for Microsoft to release a "perfect" product. In short, their support is excellent according to my opinion.

It's good to assume all people are honest, but sadly, it's only a dream.

I will definitely buy and deploy Windows XP. And as for any "unsatisfactory" user license agreement, I believe Microsoft will come up with a better solusion.

Personally, I think that this plan is going to be short lived. The initial reaction is almost exclusively negative, and I know that I am not going to rush out to upgrade my machine.

I am content with the operating systems I currently have in place, and when I build a new machine it is going to have Linux in any case. I hear (though I am not sure) that corporations will not have this same scheme applied to them, which would be a gross mistake on an already rediculous plan. Imagine havinga thousand people from one company trying to get codes at the same time? (Or one admin needing a thousand codes for different machines?)

My prediction is that this latest fad by Microsoft is only going to last for 2 versions, if that. Microsoft_has_ to pay attention at some point to an over-whelming outcry by us mere peasantry...doesn't it?

Microsoft's new "product activation" scheme has its place, but not in the IT field. I've always relied on Ghost to help me get multiple workstations up and running quickly on my networks, but with product activation, it appears that those days might be over, and much more time will be spent performing hours upon hours of Windows XP installations. That's not something I or most other IT personnel are looking forward to doing.

A possible solution that could potentially solve this problem would be to provide a version of Windows XP that incorporates a licensing checkout feature. This particular version then have a type of software metering at a server that could check out licenses as they are being used. When there are no more licensesto be checked out, go buy some more from Microsoft. This way we can continue with workstation cloning and Microsoft still gets product activation, just through different means.

Product activation is a good idea for home users who tend to be moreirresponsible with software licenses, and as long as Microsoft doesn't charge hundreds of dollars for XP, it has chance for success. However, we in IT need flexibility when it comes to installations, particularly in OS installations. Hopefully, Microsoft will provide an alternate solution for the IT community. Not only will it help us, it will also help Microsoft's shaky image among the IT community.

Our company currently has a select enterprise agreement with Microsoft. This scenario works well in corporate environments. I cant imagine having to licenses on a per unique computer especially because our company leases all their computers and thatwould mean every 36 months we would have to buy a new license to replace each computer coming off lease!! Microsoft needs to get a grip!! They are going to alienate large numbers of IT personnel because of this!!! It looks like we will stay on W2k until they change their strategy or a more viable alternative becomes available. So much for Total Cost of Ownership ( Go LINUX!! )

This sounds like a great recipe for disaster (or at least a major pain in the a**) for any organization that doesn't purchase in volume. Lots of smaller businesses don't just replace PC's when they need to upgradeo but just upgrade components. What happens when you add a new hard drive or video card and decide to re-install the OS (or more accurately NEED to re-install the OS at some future date)? Sounds like you've got a lot of explaining to do to MS. An if XP is also being deployed on the consumer end, will they too have to worry about changes to their PC configuration over time. I've never seen a distribution of any MS desktop OS that doesn't need to be re-installed eventually - heaven forbid somethings changed since the last install.

One has to take time to read the press release given out by Microsoft. Enterprise licensing will not be an issue, so business deployment of MS apps or OS's will not be held up by this interesting and ultimately flawed scheme. Those with MSDN, SELECT, or other subscription will have a "blank license" allowing them to install and use one "copy" for multiple installs. Rolling out XP for me thus wont be an issue, except the betas I have isn't worth the cd they are pressed onto. I reserve my call onrolling out WXP till I have a final version, but the Product Activation for me is not a concern. WXP so far is HORRIBLE!

Product Activation is going to hit the Home Consumer and the Small Business Consumer. They are the ones who will suffer. And they are the ones who will, ultimately, stop this from happening. Not by expressing their unhappiness, but rather in multiple class action lawsuits against Microsoft. Product Activation, in essence, restricts the purchaser from using his or her software as they see fit, ONLY because MS has stated that they will grant a LIMITED # of additional activation codes. The # is not yet known. But if I, as a home user, buy XP, am forced over the course of a year to reinstall 5 times, and MS refuses me a 6th code, they are the ones breaking the commerce contract that was begun when I purchased the software. This is however, HIGHLY dependant on the new Licensing Agreement that is included.

I hate to say it, but this will not affect piracy. No matter HOW MS does it, it will be based on some type of algorythm that will be broken and distributed by groups. Even if they set up a "license verification server" a crack will simply replace the IP address for a machine that will "verify" any code. Thisis MS's way of forcing everyone to move into .net, and it will fail. And the home consumer, who lacks net savvy, will be the only one who suffers until the scheme fails.

One has to take time to read the press release given out by Microsoft. Enterprise licensing will not be an issue, so business deployment of MS apps or OS's will not be held up by this interesting and ultimately flawed scheme. Those with MSDN, SELECT, or other subscription will have a "blank license" allowing them to install and use one "copy" for multiple installs. Rolling out XP for me thus wont be an issue, except the betas I have isn't worth the cd they are pressed onto. I reserve my call onrolling out WXP till I have a final version, but the Product Activation for me is not a concern. WXP so far is HORRIBLE!

Product Activation is going to hit the Home Consumer and the Small Business Consumer. They are the ones who will suffer. And they are the ones who will, ultimately, stop this from happening. Not by expressing their unhappiness, but rather in multiple class action lawsuits against Microsoft. Product Activation, in essence, restricts the purchaser from using his or her software as they see fit, ONLY because MS has stated that they will grant a LIMITED # of additional activation codes. The # is not yet known. But if I, as a home user, buy XP, am forced over the course of a year to reinstall 5 times, and MS refuses me a 6th code, they are the ones breaking the commerce contract that was begun when I purchased the software. This is however, HIGHLY dependant on the new Licensing Agreement that is included.

I hate to say it, but this will not affect piracy. No matter HOW MS does it, it will be based on some type of algorythm that will be broken and distributed by groups. Even if they set up a "license verification server" a crack will simply replace the IP address for a machine that will "verify" any code. Thisis MS's way of forcing everyone to move into .net, and it will fail. And the home consumer, who lacks net savvy, will be the only one who suffers until the scheme fails.

I will absolutely not buy any shrink-wrapped product that I cannot install on whatever machine I want. I even avoid PCs from manufacturers who only include a system restore CD rather than the actual program disks. It would be really nice if Microsoft focused on creating quality products that actually work rather than trying to dominate every market and put the screws on people actually willing to pay for Microsoft products. For me, Windows 98 (original) with Office 97 is it for years to come.

They also plan to do this with Office XP, and it's the nicest present they could have given Corel - WordPerfect Office is a solid product, and can get a chance for some market penetration among users who resent the whole activation scheme concept. With the activation tied to a hardware signature, system upgrades or changes may only be performed at the user's peril - the app might decide you've put it on a different PC, and quit working until you get yet another activation code. In my dealings with the Microsoft people who give CD keys to the "keyless" media for Open Licenses, I've been driven to distraction on more than one occasion by the excessively detailed information they demand, and I suspect users calling for a new activation code won't tolerate that nonsense.

If the activation scheme is in the equation for Windows XP and/or Office XP, we'll pass - we don't need the aggravation.

Having dealt with multiple copy protect schemes in the past, I doubt that MS will be able to keep their code uncracked for long.
What I am more concerned with is the possibility that future versions will be released as time limited software. It isnot much of a stretch to see this as the first step in making that happen. You register your package and the clock starts. A year from now you need to re-register - for home office/personal users a cedit card is needed to re-activate the software. Corporate users would probably be able to administer the renewal via a LAN. This gets away from the upgrade business and on to the lease business plan for income. Even if .net doesn't work out, MS can still make money.

I have mixed feelings on it. Microsoft is just trying to protect their software from piracy, but isn't this getting to the point of being greedy? Novell has been doing this for a couple of years, but they don't sell a workstation/desktop OS either. It will be interesting to see if MS jacks up the price of this new OS AND requires activation.

I agree with everyone else you have to be darn sure of yourself to put barriers in the distribution mechanism of your product. Microsoft might be able to get away with this scheme in the corporate world but the home user will be put off with this methodology.

Hello, Corel, Apple, Linux

I can't imagine all of the users in our org, or me in my dept (25+), or IT staff for the other 1500+, requesting activation codes for every installation. Why bother with software agreements and site licensing? This is nuts!!!
And yes, I have been burned by service pack 2. After one installation (and the inability to uninstall it) service pack 2 is not installed on most of my equipment.

This will certianly slow the adoption of XP in the large installs, as it will hamper the deployments with Ghost or Sysprep. We are getting ready to deploy 300+ machines this way now. This is a preferred method as it saves alot of time. It would be bad for testing purposes as well. You tend to test, mess things up, then format and reinstall. You could have to call 3 times a day for a new activation key.

For the home users, I can see this not been to bad of an idea, as they tend to share software with others. However, if your hard drive goes belly up, then what do you have to do, call Microsoft for another key?

I won't be deploying it! Looks like I'll have be a convert to Linux!

First, the new registration process is aimed at the home and small business user. Corporate/volume licensing will not be impacted by the changes.

Second, it is no secret that software piracy is rampant and seriously effects the revenue of all software companies in including Microsoft. Just because they're rich doesn't make it right.

Third, their methodology is seriously flawed so, like gun control, it will only impact the law-abiding. They had to develop contingencies for those that were not online and for those who bought new processors or upgraded their existing ones. That means there is a way to physically override the "not registered" code hidden on the hard drive. The "bottom line" is, if they can do it, so can you.

I strongly believe in the old adage, "If it's not broken, don't fix it." I have never advised my clients to upgrade to a new release unless there was a good reason to do so. So far, I have not seen anything in XP that I believe would save my clients money or significantly increase productivity. I, on the other hand, will probably upgrade to become familiar with the product. Only because I have a few adventurous clients who will upgrade just because "it's there".

And finally, remember; "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not really out to gitcha". Microsoft's great registration server in the sky will eventually have the unique processor number for everyone in the world that has a Microsoft product. Now that's something I'd like to have! I know! I know! They say they won't be keeping any more information than the processor number and the registration code, BUT how many times have we heard that from various "information gatherers" over the last few years, only to find out later that they had a different agenda.

This is probably a date/product-id specific "key" check. Those who would pirate software are going continue to pirate by setting the computer date back to the day they first called MS for their "key". Calling MS everytime you need to rebuild a machine will be an expensive and time consuming process. Have you ever tried to call MS (you had better plan on waiting in a queue for some time)? Our company does not pirate software. In fact, I police it and ensure legality. The second time I haveto wait in a queue, I will find a way to bypass the "key" (will be public knowledge on most hacker sites) but will ensure we have enough products for what we are installing.

It sounds reasonable, but it's STUPID!

Look, I know there is only one licensed copy of Windows in all of China, but really! MS is about to "point, aim, and shoot" with this one.

I bet this - One thing M$ is good at is pulling up before the ground gets too close. That will happen this time too. Never forget - Microsoft is a marketing company that sells software!

We are still in panic/confusion mode over this. I have been in the business since the Lotus 123 pain, have over 50% of my machines still at the Pentium level and have a vivid dream of a three year machine cycle going into place.
Now the reality! Install, reinstall and install again. Then I take it to (or back to) the user, they screw something up and half the time I reinstall again. That is in 24 hours. Microsoft WILL be tired of me.
Now Hacker Reality! Someone will sooner or later figure a bypass, and pass it on.
We are too small to start over with new O/S and applications therefore Microsoft is is and will be.

Our company is pretty close to dumping Office anyway. This product activation scheme will probably push us over the edge.

I know that I personally will not buy or recommend a product that uses such a scheme.

Microsoft won't be able to make this Product activation scheme bug free. My company will wait until SP1 comes out. I don't mind Microsoft. I have made a living on knowing how to get around gliches in software. Its the nature of the beast. My company has always paid for every copy of windows and office. Thats not the issue. What matters is "uptime". I'm concerned that some small glitch in the product activation database will cause PC's, or parts there of, to stop working.

Tom Harris

In Australia we have had this concept for last few years with Office products and if you are in the select or open licence program then they give you a licence number that works as many times as you have licenes. So cloning and other problems peopleare asking about would be OK.

It sounds like the MS Select users need to read their (very dry) Select agreements and all of the recent mailings associated with them (like the new CD colors?). I'm pretty sure that Microsoft is releasing a new Select licensing process in the nearfuture in which they issue a license key for each product to each Select company that can be used to install Select products. Yes, it does mean that Administrators will have to keep track of a different license key for each product they use - it also means no more loading machines off of pirated products. Select customers will still be responsible for reporting their usage and now it will be more easily traceable, and Microsoft will have a way to audit this usage very quickly (how many "MS" machines do you have that DON'T connect to the internet at some point? What about NT-type servers that aren't part of a workgroup or domain? Microsoft has been "improving" the license manager for a while). Companies, including Microsoft, are in business to MAKE MONEY. Why gripe about Microsoft doing what everyone else is, i.e. protecting their own interests? Developers will undoubtedly have some way to control their licensing without "breaking the bank" by calling MS everytime they change something.
Using Linux (and Netware, and Win2k, and Unix) for what it does best is always a good idea, but MS Windows, in any form, is still easier to use for the non-IT professionals out there. It's what they are used to, it's what they'll fight tothe death for.

I believe that if microsoft goes ahead with this scheme, they will loose a lot of customers.
We cannot afford to call and wait for permission to reload software that is already paid for.
Our public school system technology support staff cannot aford to incur any long distance telephone charges or long hold times in order to support our local networks.
I would expect our school system to switch over to another software solution!

Eddy

Microsoft necesita sangre nueva.

I am a programmer. I uses Visual Basic and ASP. What platform are they on? Microsoft. There are still tons and tons of programmers like me who uses Microsoft languages as their development language. As Microsoft upgrades their language, they will upgrade them to their new OS and start obseleting older OS support. Try developing a Visual Basic program on Windows 2000 and running them on Windows 3.1. Get the point? The point is that as applications rollout for new Microsoft platforms, users will need to upgrade their OS accordingly. Yes, I got to admit that it will affect the work of System Administrators but as if they got a choice. Yes, Java is available but C# is coming up too. Microsoft might lose some market when they comes up with thisscheme due to these System Administrator but as long as Microsoft can sell their products well with the top management, who are the System Adminstrators to say they don't want to install the new OS because they are more troublesome? Why is MCSE still being sought after? If nobody is going to use Windows, would there be a need for MCSEs?
Microsoft had already established themselves so well, the foundation stuck deep down into the ground. Having a few System Administrators unwilling to support the idea will not stop Microsoft from going ahead with their anti-priracy campaign.
I would deploy XP, provided I got the money to pay for it and this should be (is) the reason why people are shunning Microsoft and not for the anit-priracy effort that they are putting through.

That scheme will constantly complicate the life of those with legal copies, but it will be just another challenge for pirates worldwide. Once they find the way arround it - the "business" will continue as usual. I hope Microsoft thought about training centers which re-install or re-image their computers daily or people who don't have Internet connection. It would be a better idea to distribute a hardware key with each copy. It will seriously affect my plans. How - it's for me to know and for MSto find out :>

this isn't mine. it comes from canadiantom.com. but it's a good workaround.

DEFEATING WHISTLER REGISTRATION
Whistler (along with Office 10) uses a combination of a CD key and a code generated from the specific machine's hardware to generate another code, which is then validated by Microsoft by phone or over the Web, and you get another key that unlocks the software. You can't use it on two different machines,* and if you change your hardware and need to reinstall the key you have isn't valid. It's aggravating for ordinary users, and likely to be crippling for systems admins who want to be able to do multiple installs simply.

But the protection isn't rocket science, and we're told the following method works (as we don't yet have the version of Whistler with the protection, we can't verify it):

1. Disconnect from any network.
2. Start the install, but don't use dynamic update (which wants to connect, right?)
3. After installation and on first boot, don't set up your Internet connection when it asks. Click next or skip - the wizard will crash when you click next.
4. Click Start/Run and type:

regsrv32.exe -u regwizc.dll

Close the confirmation window that appears.
5. Start/run: regedit
6. Under HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\WindowsNT\CurrentVersion change RegDone value to 1
7. Open up Internet Explorer. Open the Tools/Internet Properties and change your home page to something that isn't Microsoft or MSN.
8. Reboot and before windows starts up, plug your network connection back in.

Basically, the protection is circumventable with just a little bit of detouring and a regedit. Microsoft no doubt knows this, but is presumably banking on most users going along with the process, as they've tended to do in the past. But as we say, the inconvenience factor may well change the ratios.

It's already cracked!
Here are the steps:

1. Disconnect from any network.

2. Start the install, but don't use dynamic update (which wants to connect,
right?)

3. After installation and on first boot, don't set up your Internet connection
when it asks. Click next or skip - the wizard will crash when you click next.

4. Click Start/Run and type:

regsvr32.exe -u regwizc.dll

Close the confirmation window that appears.

5. Start/run: regedit

6. Under HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\WindowsNT\CurrentVersion change
RegDone value to 1

7. Open up Internet Explorer. Open the Tools/Internet Properties and change
your home page to something that isn't Microsoft or MSN.

8. Reboot and before windows starts up, plug your network connection back in.

This is all over the Internet already.

Read full text at:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/16223.html

This plan for Microsoft will be a great trouble for all System Administrators when we rool out the software in a large scale in our ogranization.

In some organizations the requirement may vary depending upon the need. Sometimes we intall Windows9x in one machine and if need be we format the same and install Windows NT again . So in these cases we might have problem. This is not a good idea to bond the software with the hardware which will reduce the sales of XP. And sys admins are also notso free to contact Microsoft for the registration which is a sheer waste of valuable time.

I will avoid changing versions as long as possible. I started using a copy of XP beta 2 today, where I had no real choice; I had been running the first Whistler beta 1 with the date set back. Are you surprised that its SDK broke 3rd party compilers by no longer supporting the same library calls? My employer no doubt will continue to use image installations with non-functional combinations of software, and the only effect of a policy restricting the ability to repair broken image installations will be a further erosion of Microsoft's reputation, which they had nearly re-established with W2K before they went with the recovery CD policy.

Its not a bad move though would be better if the techies from redmond would highlight to us exactly what will happen in the event of severalhardware upgrades or maybe an entire network overhaul will the damn XP still work or what?

In the 1980's, AutoCad tried the same thing with a "hardware" lock. Users revolted, sales dropped, and they took away the lock.
As a VAR, I have always used my "store" copy to set up machines even though the customer had a legal copy. What will happen if I change the configuration, rebuild, or buy a differnet machine? Will I have to contact Microsoft for a new number? Microsoft's popularity was grown on ease of use, not complications of loading a machine. I think they're shooting themselves inthe foot.

This scheme didn't work very well for Borland. We were supposed to be able to register online and activate the software, but their site didn't work. Then I called... and called, and called, etc. About 3 weeks later, after I was furious, I finallygot the code to run their software.

That's a lot of crap to go through. I won't be upgrading immediately.

If M$ are sure that this will block 50%piracy are they offering this product 50%cheaper than NT or 2000. I think not.

It has nothing to do with piracy it is pure greed. They have the monopoly and are using it.

I hope this is another class action suit wating to happen

Most home users won't buy this upgrade. I must have 5 different copies of WIN95, WIN98 and Windows Me at home and I would probably have to buy additional copies of XP to upgrade my home network. Sooner or later Microsoft would declare the XP platform obsolete and no longer provide the install codes. Not a pretty picture. I would expect a strong reaction form the Hacker community, too.

Microsoft is already doing this with Office 2000, when I tried to reinstall it on a reformatted harddrive I was forced to call an 800 number (how long will the call be free)to justify why I was installing office again. I was told by the Microsoft Rep that thins are going to get worse. Linux is looking better and better to this user

This scheme won't work out well im my opinion. It boils down to this. You CANNOT prevent codes from being generated by "hackers". They will have to either provide global free internet access and a modem with every copy OR they will have to createsome way of you regestering offine. If just ONE person can register offline so can the rest of the world.

The second major problem here is that if, as a home user, I prefer to upgrade hardware rather than purchase a nice new machine that comes with M$'s next crappy product preloaded, I am screwed out of my LEGAL copy of the software.

As for the arguement that I will eventually be FORCED to upgrade due to software development I don't buy the agrument that a 2000 app will not work on win3.1. For god sakes win 3.1 was eyecandy for a DOS computer, it WAS NOT an opperating system. Let's compare apples to apples. You try and show me a product that was written for ME or win 2K that WILL NOT run on a fully patched copy of Win 95. And make sure it is a prduct that a normal HOME user would use, not some corporate special. You can't do that. Now unless you write an operating system, programming language and Application that requires 64 or 128 bit processing exclusively you just can't do it. And who really is going to go through all the trouble of excluding the vast majority of the existing market to do this? NO Body that is who.

The whole idea is doomed to failure, in fact it burns my butt so much I think I will make sure I get a pirated copy (it would be my first pirated OS ever) jsut to prove the point.

This is sheer lunacy.

The fact that instalation can only be done once will discourage me from buying the product. Think back to how many times you re-installed your OS because of "modifications" made which turned disasterous to the computer.

The proposed 30 day trial before you regester with Microsoft to receive the real code to activate the product will be difficult at best. Consider all the people building computers for customers. The end-users will have to enter the number into their computer themself after regestering with Microsoft. The typical user has a high margin for error at this point which will come back to the builder of the pc.

I will not buy further Microsoft products in the near future because what I have works very well. We do not need a new operating system every year financially, economically, or practically - it just is not efficient.

- Todd

By this I take it to mean that everytime I upgrade the same basic computer I am probably going to have to "re-register"? Pure unadluterated B*** S***!!!! I upgrade my primary system hardware on average twice a year. I tend to stick with the same software though except for upgrades. In my opinion this scheme is excellent for the Linux camp. Many more people will become thoroughly choked with Microsoft and move on.

In a perfect world with nobody ever having a problem with hardware or software this would work. This is not a perfect world. Although the stated purpose is to protect against lost revenues due to software piracy I find this "solution" is not a viable answer. Unless of course your goal is decrease your sales and annoy yourclients.

By this I take it to mean that everytime I upgrade the same basic computer I am probably going to have to "re-register"? Pure unadluterated B*** S***!!!! I upgrade my primary system hardware on average twice a year. I tend to stick with the same software though except for upgrades. In my opinion this scheme is excellent for the Linux camp. Many more people will become thoroughly choked with Microsoft and move on.

In a perfect world with nobody ever having a problem with hardware or software this would work. This is not a perfect world. Although the stated purpose is to protect against lost revenues due to software piracy I find this "solution" is not a viable answer. Unless of course your goal is decrease your sales and annoy yourclients.

By this I take it to mean that everytime I upgrade the same basic computer I am probably going to have to "re-register"? Pure unadluterated B*** S***!!!! I upgrade my primary system hardware on average twice a year. I tend to stick with the same software though except for upgrades. In my opinion this scheme is excellent for the Linux camp. Many more people will become thoroughly choked with Microsoft and move on.

In a perfect world with nobody ever having a problem with hardware or software this would work. This is not a perfect world. Although the stated purpose is to protect against lost revenues due to software piracy I find this "solution" is not a viable answer. Unless of course your goal is decrease your sales and annoy yourclients.

By this I take it to mean that everytime I upgrade the same basic computer I am probably going to have to "re-register"? Pure unadluterated B*** S***!!!! I upgrade my primary system hardware on average twice a year. I tend to stick with the same software though except for upgrades. In my opinion this scheme is excellent for the Linux camp. Many more people will become thoroughly choked with Microsoft and move on.

In a perfect world with nobody ever having a problem with hardware or software this would work. This is not a perfect world. Although the stated purpose is to protect against lost revenues due to software piracy I find this "solution" is not a viable answer. Unless of course your goal is decrease your sales and annoy yourclients.

One of my clients is running Microsoft Small Business Server 4.5 on their network, utilizing Exchange 5.5 and Proxy server 2.0. I update Windows NT 4 to service pack 6a without any problem and added service pack 4 for Exchange as well as the Mailbox
Manager. Then I put Service Pack 1 for Proxy 2.0 on the system - everything went fine until the customer tried updating some of their web pages - ftp failures, time outs and dropped updates - I spent about a week trying to figure this out - everything on the internet said sp1 would fix this problem - but it actually caused it

I think its time for the IT world to start convincing their corporate managers that its time to det out from under the megolith giant called Micrsoft (MS) and migrate to Linux and Star Office (or Word Perfect Suite). This will be my advice to any and all that I come in contact with from now on. I will NOT purchase nor recommend any MS XP product as long as this "product activation" feature remains active. This also applies to Office 2000 with SP1.

Since the activation code will be based on a computer configuration code that MS's software determines during installation, will the software cease to operate if you change one of the sampled hardware elements, thus requiring re-installation?

Since, Bill is the lead pirate as far as I know, he is the most paranoid about the other pirates. For me, Windows 2000 will be good enough until Linux can replace it on the desktop. Come on Star Office...! If he makes us IT guys call him everytime we need to build a machine...We are going to find another way to go. We got too much to do as it is...

I think Microsoft needs to remember that the tougher they make it to use and install their products the less companies are going to buy them.

Is MS really trying to push Linux to the forefront as a desktop solution. I know that from a corporate standpoint, when you are trying to mass deploy builds/upgrades ease of deployment is key. The companies that I have worked for don't have a problem paying for the licensing. What they do want though, is a faster time to enterprise wide deployment.MS doesn't seem to understand their customer if they are going to lock down their products even more.

I use a lot of PCs. My office desktop, a home desktop, three laptops, my four sons and a daughter all have a desktop....and one of these is constantly in need of update or is crashing and needs to be rebuilt. You don't get Windows on CD when you buya machine anymore - it's preinstalled on the hard drive. So when that machine gets hosed you have no way to rebuild it.
Further, since every PC comes with a slightly different version of Windows installed none of my PCs work well together - my LANis a sick joke - yet I had to pay a Windows license fee as part of every purchase price. I want to buy one op-sys, one suite of apps, and run it on all mavchines - but this means buying many licenses of Windows and Office - licenses that I have already paid for, yet would cost me thousands to repurchase.
Since I am the only one who uses these machines on any kind of a regular basis, and very very rarely are any two machines in use at any given time, why should I pay for current licenses for each machine? Microsoft is already my families largest charity.
If they ever get a PC op-sys together that allows me to actually get work done, I might change my thinking....but right now I spend much more time trying to get PCs to work than actually doing the work I bought them to do.
All that is why I have a CD burner - I can control my environment and Microsoft be damned!

This has already FAILED in Australia.

This seems too much like the idea MS tried with Office2000 in Australia. You could only use it 50 times, then you had to get a code from MS to continue using it. IT FAILED in the largest of ways, and MS quietly dropped it, and went back to the normal way of doing things. I have a version of O2K that does this on my daughter's machine - every time I upgrade the machine with a new HDD, (or format it for a new operating system), I have to get a new code from MS. Could MS stand for Mega Stuff-up????

Three points.
1. Do you remember the 80's? IBM tried this with the MCA bus. MCA was a very good design, but IBM wanted every manufacturer to pay for all past usage of ISA designs. The result was the EISA bus, and universal abhorance for MCA and IBM.

2. The BIG flaw in this plan? It doesn't offer any "good" side. What are we going to get out of this giant headache? A new OS. Will it be better? Will it be cheaper? Will it offset the giant headaches this plan will cause? Unless Microsoft gives us something VERY substantial to offset the problem, I do not see myself, or anyone else useing it. It will be the first "OS flop" in MS's history.

3. I have always defended MS's actions to my unix friends because they gave good value for the money. Each OS gave you more built in support and capabilities for the same price. This will signify the end of the era of more value for the same price, and the beginning of standard "monopolistic" practices of most large corporations. Can you say "INTEL" and its CPU ID code?

Since MS is considering this, I must now reluctantly change my view about the DOJ lawsuit. The only way I see to forstall these kinds of monopolistic ideas from being forced upon us is to go ahead and break MS up.

I have mixed feelings about this approach. As a former MS employee, I can understand their attitude toward piracy, but as an end user, I don't know how this is going to grow sales. This will alienate many users because MS doesn't have the staff toman the phones and why is it any of their business what sort of hardware my software is running on...? Also, what about people who buy a new machine and get rid of the old one? How is this going to work out?
From a corporation, this will alleviate any licensing issues, so this could well be a good thing, but for home users, this will be a nightmare.

I have had to re-install Windows because of both Software and Hardware crashes -- including hard disk crashes. I have upgraded systems and put new "bigger, better, faster" hardware (including disk drives) that required windows to be re-installed. If a new license is required because I either upgrade or repair a PC - I don't think that I will be too pleased. If the procedure to get "permission" to re-install software that I have already paid for is too difficult, I won't be too pleased.

Idon't believe in SW piracy, but I always thought if I bought a full version (not just an upgrade) OS and had to replace a PC, I could install that copy on a new pc (If I removed it from the old before I discarded it). Are we changing the rules, or was I wrong in this assumption>?

I deal a lot with different schemes when it come to prevention of piracy. With some to the process control software we are still required to use hardware keys. My response to Microsoft is the same as it has been to all the other software vendors that I have to deal with. I am not after using your product without paying for it, but it has got to be easy to install and use. I do not need the headaches you have to deal with concerning activation codes, hardware keys, etc. and I do not have theextra time that will be needed to install it. If you feel the need to audit me, then do so, but do not put any special activation codes etc. on your software, just make it easy to use or I will find some other product to purchase that does so. This whole thing surprises me from Microsoft in that they have such a large peice of the marketplace anyway, and they did not get to where they are by not trusting people.

Please do not do this Microsoft, as I like your products and would hate to change to something else.

This is delicious! Microsoft, whose beginnings were based on the piracy of CPM, renamed DOS for IBM, is concerned that some people may be loading their OS on more than one machine (which is what made them #1 in the first place). It's the pot calling the kettle black, & backed by law! Go, Bill!

It's time to take another look at Linux, people. Wake up!

I handle IT for a small company that has (almost) 50 PC's so far, so bulk licensing is not economical. Also we change out devices quite a bit to upgrade machines. That means we have to re-buy the OS every time we upgrade a PC in any way. That is not going to float at all.
As far as home use is concerned, I rebuild my home PCs (I have three of them, all licensed, thank you) at least once a year, each. As one of your readers pointed out, MS OS'es tend to eat themselves, which requires an occasional reload. Also, I use one of my home PC's as a test bed to try out things before I inflict them on my users atwork. I would have to buy a new OS about 5 times a year for Home!!! This weekend, for instance, I had to re-install 98se 3 times on my Athlon machine, because it kept comming up with irreparable conflicts. It's really NOT that smart of an OS, & once it makes an error, the easiest way to fix it is to re-position hardware, format & reload.
My Suze Linux package actually does a better job of hardware management. It's more stable too. If the right software were available, I would change the OS of preference at work. Upper management is getting sick of the MS battle, so they would back me. This is a Bad Move, MS.

I see where you can only install the software once, but do they have a mechanism to stop the use of the bought cd from becoming a 'master' disk? Can I use the original that hasn't been installed anywhere yet to be used to clone more cd's from it?
Because of this goofy plan to stop piracy I think that most businesses that use one cd to become a mirror for all other pc's may do as I probably will: stop buying anymore Windows products and stay with win2k until such time that the market share drops and Microsoft realizes the error of it's ways.

I have long been a defender of MS (and I am a Unix/MS systems integrator) but this scheme really makes the arguement for the other side, and I must therefore bow my head in shame.

If you really want to upset someone, all you need to do is make their computer inoperable when they need it most. The licensing scheme MS is touting will definately accomplish that. We all know Murphy's law by heart, don't we?

There has to be a better way.

As a devoted Windows user I think that Microsoft is making a bad move. I will start thinking about other OS's if they do this. I have two computers at home that I use regularly. If I buy software, I buy it with the intention of using it on both machines. Microsoft is getting a little too greedy with this latest ploy! I certainly won't pay hundreds of dollars for a software program that is not mine to use as I see fit. Microsoft coming in to my home and telling me where and what I can install on my machines is a little too much!

Microsoft introduced this system in Australia with Office 2000. (any other countries too?) I had pre release copies of the kit and, as a developer wanted to install O2K on various partitions. Each install required me to ring Microsoft-what a pain! I was told I could have a maximum of two installs. At the time I had Win 95 / Win 98 / and Win2000b partitions for testing Access databases. If Microsoft pushes this concept, could this could be the beginning of a new era for Linux/Open Office?

I can understand their concern for piracy but it certainly raises a lot of questions and a few issues. For example, if they insist on capturing your hardware configuration, what happens when users upgrade their motherboards or hard drives and now have to re-register their software. Is this part of a grander scheme to draw folks to MSN.net. Having used Windows 2000 since its release and now Office 2000, I can't help but notice how it likes to "install on the fly" if you didn't select those options on the initial install. Where are these modules going to come from? MSN.NET? Does that mean I need to switch service providers? Will the usage be metered and I sent a bill at the end of the month? Is this more of a tactical manuever to slow the AOL movement? What happens when the internet or ISP is not available and you need a component that wasn't installed?

Like I said it raises more questions than provides answers. Maybe their intention is to help Linux gain a foothold to reduce the DOJ claims of monopoly.

From my point of view Windows 2000 will be on my computer for a long time. I think we found a solution for the wrong problem. I don't think the burden placed on small business and home users is justified but thatis just my opinon. I thought the solutions were intended to improve productivity and reduce costs. This seems contrary to those goals.

Just an opinion.

I can understand their concern for piracy but it certainly raises a lot of questions and a few issues. For example, if they insist on capturing your hardware configuration, what happens when users upgrade their motherboards or hard drives and now have to re-register their software. Is this part of a grander scheme to draw folks to MSN.net. Having used Windows 2000 since its release and now Office 2000, I can't help but notice how it likes to "install on the fly" if you didn't select those options on the initial install. Where are these modules going to come from? MSN.NET? Does that mean I need to switch service providers? Will the usage be metered and I sent a bill at the end of the month? Is this more of a tactical manuever to slow the AOL movement? What happens when the internet or ISP is not available and you need a component that wasn't installed?

Like I said it raises more questions than provides answers. Maybe their intention is to help Linux gain a foothold to reduce the DOJ claims of monopoly.

From my point of view Windows 2000 will be on my computer for a long time. I think we found a solution for the wrong problem. I don't think the burden placed on small business and home users is justified but thatis just my opinon. I thought the solutions were intended to improve productivity and reduce costs. This seems contrary to those goals.

Just an opinion.

I run linux and I sleep soundly at night. My users use StarOffice. My machines run for hundreds of days between rebooting. fvwm is as easy to use as Windows/95 is. I don't have to worry about my machines becoming too slow or too small: the newest linux kernels have footprints comparable to the oldest linux kernels.

But the best part is: no jack booted thugs from the SPA coming to my business in the middle of the night. No licenses to manage.
<* sigh *> Life is good.

Is this new O/S going to be as unreliable and leaky as the rest, because if it is, I think that the money saved on the licenced products would be better spent on a Linux training course.
Microsoft has a lot to worry about from the open source community. Making the O/S more difficult to install is just silly.

How are network admins who wish to deploy several o/s's at once ever going to manage to keep track of which activation code goes with which pc? I can imagine Microsoft having a problemwith Piracy, but I don't think they thought this out too carefully, I mean, aside from the call centres being bogged down with people trying to reactivate their systems having lost the bit of paper they hastily scribbled down the code when they called to get their PC online in the first place, will they really save more money by creating expensive call centres than they are currently losing through improper use of licence codes, and finally, how long will it be before someone on some mission tobring Microsoft down finds a way round this, or even cracks the key algorithm?

Cheers
Jon

Hold on, I've just read above that Hackers and Crackers have already cracke this anti piracy method of registration. Since this is designed to stop exactly those people, WHAT'S THE POINT OF DOING THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE MICROSOFT??? I mean, why bother, if someone's going to own a legal copy, they will, if it's actually easier to crack the software than to register it, then the people that have several PC's may even turn to cracking it instead of registering it DESPITE having bought a licenced copy of the software for each PC. WAKE UP MICROSOFT, YOUR WORLD DOMINATION PLANS HAVE BEEN STIFLED BEFORE YOU'VE EVEN STARTED!! (Besides, Cisco now own the world!!!)

License schemes are annoying but are managable when the products are few, such as firewalls, email servers, etc.

But let's face it, machines break, are destroyed by users, and are cursed by the Microsoft OS that must be washed and re-installed from time-to-time. Our method for deployment is duplication and I can see the nightmare already beginning.

In a government possition where there are very few people to do the work, Windows XP will never be an option. This whole process will burden us with paper pushing instead of doing IT work. We can't even keep up with the current load.

Mac OS X is starting to look really nice!

Microsoft is shooting themselves in the foot again. With Microsoft facing diminishing revenues due to poor product reliability, support, and other legal issues, they are trying to bolster their future revenue base through license enforcement. This has never worked. This type of action will encourage open operating system platforms (Linux) to support Windows based applications through the use of WINdows Emulators, (see WINE at www.winehq.com). Although interfaces such as WINE are still in development, Microsoft could stimulate this development effort by releasing XP.

I've installed some software that uses a similar product registration scheme. It's one of those "try it for 10 days...buy it if you like it" products. This app comes from a MAJOR software vendor.

According to the vendor, the registration process takes a lot of hardware information (MAC address, HD volume-serial, etc.) and creates a registration code. That code is supplied back to the vendor (along with some additional personal info) over the net. That information is used to generate a product activation code. Sounds like MicroSoft is copying someone else's idea once again.

Needless to say, this registration process is a nightmare! Someone changes the volume label on the HD, or the HD fails and gets replaced...POOF! The productquits working. A NIC fails and gets replaced...POOF! The product quits working. !@#$%!

I'm now in the process of replacing this software with a more user (and admin) friendly application. Good riddance!

I'm sure if MicroSoft sees fit to goforth with this "product activation" scheme, people will grow weary of it quickly. I've had my belly full of it already.

-Mitch

I've installed some software that uses a similar product registration scheme. It's one of those "try it for 10 days...buy it if you like it" products. This app comes from a MAJOR software vendor.

According to the vendor, the registration process takes a lot of hardware information (MAC address, HD volume-serial, etc.) and creates a registration code. That code is supplied back to the vendor (along with some additional personal info) over the net. That information is used to generate a product activation code. Sounds like MicroSoft is copying someone else's idea once again.

Needless to say, this registration process is a nightmare! Someone changes the volume label on the HD, or the HD fails and gets replaced...POOF! The productquits working. A NIC fails and gets replaced...POOF! The product quits working. !@#$%!

I'm now in the process of replacing this software with a more user (and admin) friendly application. Good riddance!

I'm sure if MicroSoft sees fit to goforth with this "product activation" scheme, people will grow weary of it quickly. I've had my belly full of it already.

-Mitch

Okay. Before anyone else posts here please read the following URL on this and be informed.

http://www.microsoft.com/PressPass/press/2001/Feb01/ProdActFAQ.asp

This activation on applies to RETAIL licensing as per Question #5. So to those of us involved in most IT licensing schemes it will not be a real issue.

I think it is proper and justified in RETAIL markets where there is so much copying of products. Also as per Question #5 most OEMs can or will activate the software for the end users.

This may increase the dependence of users on tech support of such products if a system rebuild is required. (Unless the OEM has activated software on the restore disks.)

The biggest problem will be is if an Office program was installed on OEM by a manufacturer on one machine and for some reason the user wants to install it on another machine PERMANETLY. I am of the opinion that a end user that buys software OEM like Office should have the right to transfer it if they choose to. The only requirement is that they get rid of the copy that is on the machine that originally housed the software. If Microsoft can incorporate a system to do that then this licensing benefits all the legal users.

Will it affect my deployment of XPin the environments that I work in? No since most of my clients are using business level licensing. EVEN small clients should consider using that model.

In addition it will not affect my environment at home much.

I am not a big fan of Microsoft per say but I do believe that they are entitled to protect their intellicutual property. If we choose not to like the way they do it then we should start looking at products that support the way we want to work. But till then it is just one of the realities of working in the business.

I don't understand what is so "new and contrevesial" about this policy? Microsoft already does this with Office 2000. Sure it's annoying, but so far I haven't had a problem (of course I haven't broken the mythological "two times and that's it" rule yet).

However, I suspect that if MS attempts to deploy this using their OS market where millions of PC's are required to register then they are going to have a very large call center to handle the reauthorization requests.

The thing I have a problem with more is MS attempt to lock the consumer into using the OS that is preloaded on the PC by providing an "image partition" containing the system software rather than a real CD. Makes it kind of inconvenient to repartition the hard drive torun Linux.

If you make one mistake and decide to go back to the OS that was on the PC originally, you might not be able to.

I see that there are several problems related to product activation that I haven't seen an answer for.

Take this scenario, for example... A user installs Office XP on his PC. He wishes to upgrade his system board. Office XP no longer works. What then? I think that the user is going to be very frustrated, not to mention that Microsoft is going to have to staff engineers to help him resolve the problem. I think that Microsoft is going to greatly increase their costs trying to maintain the "product activation" database.

I realize that piracy is a huge issue, but I don't think that this is the answer. I think Microsoft would have done better to consult with their current registered users to come up with a truly open solution, rather than forcing their so-called solutions on the public.

Finally, I believe that product activation is only going to create more work for already over-worked administrators who haven't even got Windows 2000 and company implemented yet. I don't feel that administrators are going to want more to do...but then again, I could be wrong.

I think that I will not be recommending any further upgrades to the OSs we use in my company if this becomes Microsoft's standard practice. I support only 100 or so users, but none of them have any technical talent at all. They crash their PCs on a regular basis, and over time the original CDs have become separated from their respective PCs. I frequently have to re-install Windows from whatever CD is handy - perfectly legal, as all of our machines shipped with Windows preinstalled and are therefore licensed - but with no guarantee that I'm using the "right" copy. This policy will make that impossible, and is entirely unacceptable. I'm taking a closer look at Linux.

This activation scheme was used in MS Office 2000 Academic version in North America, and tested in the "regular" versions overseas in several markets. If you had visited the newsgroups, then you would have seen that this concept was not well received. Unfortunately, because of market dominance and the use of the product in government and major corporate circles, you have limited alternatives.
Deployment at my former employer, an education institution, was a nightmare. Like other users, we had used cloning software to install on classroom computers. We had to adjust our spending program, licensing procedure, and installation process to adjust to this activation routine (and you could obtain the code via telephone).
My greatest worry for XP is the possibility that you have to install the software from scratch (not copy/clone) in order to get the full hardware configuration to obtain the activation code. While this won't necessarily prevent us from upgrading to XP (depending on the features), it will significantly increase the Total Cost of Ownership of a computer with the added installation/installation time. Features will dictate whether the product will be used, but deployment costs will rise because of the scheme.

What piracy are they talking about? Most retail users buy a new machine, THAT ALREADY HAS a windows license on it. Most XP users will be on new hardware with a valid license already, I doubt that many users will be switching to XP until they buy anew machine. All this does is hamper support and upgrade issues on any XP machines. I give this lame idea the same chance of working as pigs flying.

Also, the only people it really hurts is Joe or Jane user (and my grandma ;) ) Any power userwill have a hack or workaround solution to this idiocy. I have a couple games (purchased retail and LEGAL) that are FULLY INSTALLED to the hard drive but still insist on having the CD in the drive, it took me all of 5 minutes to find a hack^h^h^h^her, fix to take care of that. The only people who suffer are those who can't fix it themselves, the same people who are also the least likely to 'pirate' the software anyways...

A number of posters have noted that MicroSlop says the Select CD's will not be subject to this registration scheme, so this is not a big problem for most companies. I disagree. Try buying a new computer without an OS installed ... nearly impossible!MicroSlop's contracts with most vendors virtually force them to include Windows, even if the user already owns a copy, or wishes to install another OS. So our workstations generally come with Windows included, and I'm not paying for a second licenseso I can use the Select CD!

Asking the IT staff to track registration numbers for hundreds of systems, or even a dozen, as asinine. I strongly object to this new registration scheme.

On a more personal note, I think it is an invasion of privacy. I don't generally send in registration cards, because I don't want the companies having all my personal data. And I don't appreciate having to ask permission every time I decide to move my licenced OS or desktop apps to a new computer, or upgrademy CPU.

For my personal PC life, this is the last straw. I finally purchased a PC with Linux on it, and I will be installing Linux on a couple of my older systems as well. I downloaded StarOffice for Linux and NT, and will be converting all my personal documents.

I may have to swallow this crap professionally in another year or two, but it won't come into my house!

Go ahead Microsoft...shoot yourself in the foot despite your big toe getting in the way.

I have been using Microsoft products since DOS 2.0, not because I purchased them, but because a friend turned me on to this great, new operating system that did so many great things and IT WASN'T UNIX. (No offense to the Unix community intended)

I liked the O/S so much, I went out and purchased a copy for myself and have been doing so ever since.

I firmly believe in the "Try BEFORE you buy" method of trying out software, otherwise known as "SHAREWARE". Microsoft seems to be afraid of this type of avenue to gain support for its products, why?? Because it has become common knowledge that when Microsoft releases a new version of anything, you canexpect it to be buggy and be followed by numerous service packs and patches.

It is my humble opinion that if Microsoft heads in this direction with their products, they will be alienating many long time loyal supporters just because of a few people that refuse to pay for the product.

12 billion dollars lost to software piracy....I don't think so. How could anyone come up with any type of number that would even come close to being accurate.

Go ahead Mr. Gates and Microsoft, I have been a loyal supporter of your products for many years, but if you plan on going in this direction with the your software, you can expect 3 things to happen...

1. Piracy will become even more appealing and the Hacker realm of programmers WILL find a way around this.

2. Loyal supporters will eventually become tired of this method of registering and will find other avenues for their operating system solutions...and

3. You will be sending a message to everyone that they do not have the right touse the software even after paying your fee for a license, which in my opinion has gotten way too expensive.

Go ahead Microsoft, cut your nose off despite your face.

Specifically, the realm of Microsoft?s strategy is not incoherent aligned to their continual history of producing defective, uncompetitive products. This new supposed copyright protection scheme is inherently unnecessary in the schema of Operating Systems. Since it is impossible to utilize a P.C. without Microsoft?s OS then why is this ort of registration necessary.

Many years ago it was suggested that the OS be provided either in a MOBO ROM or supplied gratis as an inherent part of the system, being a PC is particularly useless without an operating system. Most often my PC is very useless attempting to utilize any of the Windows Operating Systems. Unfortunately I cannot run the Mac OS on my PC in order to stably run my collection of Windows compatible software programs. As long as memory persists of personal involvements with the desktop computer, since 1980 [only 20 years now] each and every edition of Microsoft SW has elucidated bugs that the entirety of the Microprocessor world has been forced to contend with.

The mainstays of MS programs that remain profitable are Windows and Office; both of each really stinks. And certainly inclusive of the Internet Explorer5.5 that is completely incompatible with Window 2000, and Microsoft had admitted this fact of incompatibility.

If in the real world of competitive commerce these defective programs would be lost for strength, struggling to survive in any commercial marketplace. Yet, through their dictatorial controls theycontinue to develop products that must be aligned with the remainder of their product line. Such as: It is impossible to run any version of Windows without I.E integrated in the system. [Continued]

[Continued from previous message]

Their concern for additional protection is somewhat of a derisive ploy as an excuse from actually manufacturing a perfect product.

I?ve already economically paid for Windows and the Office Suite. And paid emotionally a hundredfold and usually finding myself psychologically exasperated too, as all of us have. The realm of Microsoft being such a profitable corporation is certainly that they don?t spend but a scintilla on R&D or Support of what they responsibly and commercially should be doing.

Will the new XP series of products be guaranteed not to crash exactly at the moment when any particular project is due? Will we have to pray that every time our CPU?s are rebooted that the backup tape might not be necessary? Or can or should the OS be completely invisible to the user as is the BIOS EPROM that is always upgraded for free. Such is the predicament of the new SW releases that should be signified as just a new Service Pack for the already defective marketable SW products.

The new additions should be supplied gratis to the license that I?ve already purchased and still struggling with. Or do we really have a place to actually comment on the dictatorial aspect of Microsoft, this argumentseemingly being fortuitous. Matter not, whatever Microsoft desires to do they will do it and should not effect their incoherent overwhelming position in the marketplace.

Microsoft is going to do what it deems best for its business, and my customers and I will do the same.

If product activation codes create more nuisance than the new software provides benefits, then we will continue to use/buy the older versions as long as possible. In short, we may stop the upgrade cycle that generates great revenues for Microsoft. Microsoft does respond to its customers, so sales figures will tell it whether product activation codes hurt sales more than they help anti-piracy.

The combination of Windows 2000 and Office 2000 is so good that I'm sure we could run with it for many years. It is hard to imagine what "must have" feature could be added that would essentially demand an upgrade. Right now, it seems more likely that a lack of driver support in a few years could force an upgrade where the addition of features might not.

Don't do This Thing:
I am employed as a full time computer tech in a busy shop . Without admitting any wrongdoing let me say that in the course of a busy day we simply don't have time to insure that every customer has provided the correct key code for his OS, when his machine has crashed and we are reloading it from a format.
Half the time when the customer DOES provide the software disk they cannot locate the little book that went with it. The other half of the time they have an "upgrade" and require the "full install" or vice versa. I dread the impact that phone in keycodes will have on the customer's repair bill. Personally I refuse to wait on "microsoft hold" for free during a re-install. Ultimately the end user will pay for Bill's paranoia as usual.
With Estimated 40% of Microsoft OS's being unlicensed, why doesn't Microsoft reduce the price by 40% and see if they will increase the licensing compliance by making it easier to purchase than to pirate.
This might be a good time to buy some more "Penguin" stock

With volume licensing, "Product Activation" shouldn't be a big deal in a large company. Their worst nightmare will be when they roll out new hardware.

For the average Joe and Jane, it could be a nightmare. Especially if each install on the hardware generates a different key, requiring a new activation. Microsoft never pins down what a 'significant hardware change' is that would require a new activation. I'm sure upgrading your system board will require a new activation, but how about doubling your RAM, adding or replacing a hard drive, updating your BIOS.

I'm also leary of Microsoft not collecting information with authorization via the web, they've lied to us before...

I'll be answering these questions myself as we'll be running XP in our lab before getting a site license and rolling it out company wide.

My best advice is to wait until at least the first service pack is released.

I agree that this will cause problems for administrators who must provide Internet access for all workstations. However, piracy has become a big problem worldwide and it is understandable why a for-profit business would see the need to implement this strategy.

We develop educational software that is downloadable to teachers in the US and worldwide. If we sell the software packaged and on disk, we don't require the activation, just registration. Thus, we only require product activation fordownloaded software where the user already has Internet access. (Note: our downloaded software is about 75% less expensive than on disk, which encourages people to download, reducing our losses to piracy.) Perhaps this is an option for Microsoft.

How cracking can fail...

I would think that all MS would have to do to help ensure that cracking schemes fail will be to check for a legitimate activation(maybe they could sign the activations with a private key) when a user tries to use the Windows Update site. I know I'd have a lot more difficulty maintaining desktops without this service.

Would you be willing to update your desktop with a "Security Patch" obtained from a site other than Microsoft's -- e.g., some hacker site that provided the original crack? I sure wouldn't be too comfortable with that!

Seems like a lose-lose proposition. IT loses because of the hassle of having to say "Mother May I?" every time we move a piece of software or reinstall it. Microsoft loses because it has to institute an expensive infrastructure to handle the activations which, should they be successful in curbing their theft "losses," they still have to maintain and fund.

My current Windows and Office versions are looking very good to me.

You actually have three major scenarios to consider. The first being the volume user that has licensing agreements and therefore does not have to worry about the activation process. The second is the small business / individual consumer who will purchase these products already installed from either the hardware manufacturer or local distributor.
The third is the business that does not fit into either of the other scenarios. Not big enough to buy product in volume and not small enough to beable to use "canned" configurations.

The first scenario will see little or no change in the rollout / upgrade process that they already have in place, unless the bugs that have plagued Microsoft products in the past show up within the product activation code.

The second scenario will also see little impact after initial setup because they have little need to make a lot of changes to their hardware or software. This is the same reason that you see a large number of workstations still running Windows 95 and Office 97.

The real problem comes in the third tier user that makes a lot of changes to their hardware / software because they are in a moderate to rapid growth state, and wants to stay on top of the "latest" technology both in hardware and software.

This activation process is one that has been tried over and over again with application products, Lan OSes, etc. with a lot of grumbling and gripping by IT staff and management.

If you feel that the price is too high to pay, buy something else. Just be aware that
in this arena, you definitely get what you pay for and although OSes like Linux are "free", you will have to do a lot of work to set it up and maintain it, whereas products from Microsoft have a lotof the setup tools built into them along with support for a limited time.

It's your call.

Microsoft would be well advised to cool it. This is not the time to flaunt its "monopoly" by behavior which flouts history and public and professional opinion. Back in the good old days when it was being "competitive", Microsoft set standards of openness that made the competition look silly for their frequently clumsy anticopying devices and, of course, stimulated growth of its own user base. So what has so obviously changed? Mr Gates needs to rethink his strategy and return to the old form.

I purchased Office 2000 when it first came out and since then have changed operating systems 4 times ( Windows 95,98,NT and 2000). I've started from scratch each time instead of upgrading and had to call Microsoft each time to activate my Office software and I don't like it. It's hard to get through and they do ask a lot of questions. I feel it's none of their business what changes I make to my computer or why I'm reinstalling my software or how many times it gets reinstalled. They should concentrate their efforts on making the software CDs copy-proof and/or make the programs actually have to use the CD to run instead of focusing on how many times you install it. I think this is just another scheme designed for marketing purposes.

This will kill tech support on every company.
I hope MS will change the policy.

glen

The good news is that of the $12 billion lost annually to piracy, the lion's share must be Microsoft losses. It follows, therefore, that ensuing releases of these products will go down in price (since I'm certain that piracy/anti-piracy costs are now figured into the pricing on all of Microsoft's products).

I think Microsoft are going to shoot themselves in the foot.I agree that something has to be done about software piracy but with Linux being a free operating system and the popuality growing more poeple will MIGRATE. The best way is BRING THE PRICE DOWN. Not activation????????????

Ed...I work in industrial automation. We have had "activation" files for many years (in fact that's exactly what they are called...you get one per copy of software you buy). The activation file resides on the computer that will use the software. You have the ability to move the activation on to another drive, a floppy (the floppy would have to stay in the machine as long as the software is running) or another machine. Each copy of software is tracked...if you lose your hard drive...you calltech support...give them your serial number...they know exactly who you are...and you get a code over the phone to reset your activation. The software will not even start if it can't find the activation file.

I knew that Microsoft would start implementing something like this in the future...I just didn't know when. All of us industrial engineers who use industrial software have had to deal with hardware and software keys for many, many years. This is something that Microsoft will not backoff from (it's worked too well in the industrial world...).

As a consultant I often face the pro Microsoft software argument: ?This is what our users have at their home desktops, so why bother evaluating other solutions?? A large number of those home systems are using either pirated or "gray" software (wherelicensing is unclear)
Microsoft will force those users to evaluate and select their software.
The outcome will be interesting.