Important activation changes to Windows Vista

[techs]

I just got this in an email from MS partner program.
I haven't had a chance to verify it.

To: Microsoft Partners

From: Allison Watson

Subject: Important activation changes to Windows Vista

Date: April 27, 2007

As a valued partner and trusted advisor to our customers, I wanted to re-iterate Microsoft’s commitment to helping protect consumers and software resellers from the risks associated with pirated software. Millions of PCs that ship each year end up with non-genuine Windows® software, which puts you at a competitive disadvantage, and your customers at risk of a sub-optimal experience.

The significant anti-piracy technologies built into Windows Vista™ software are designed to make the widespread pirating of Windows Vista more difficult. Now, all customers who deploy Windows Vista must successfully activate their product using a genuine product key. If a non-genuine product key is used in activation, customers will experience reduced functionality and lose certain features, such as Microsoft Aero and ReadyBoost.

To avoid potential business disruptions and maintain the highest level of satisfaction with Windows Vista deployments, the most important activation changes for you to be aware of and to inform your customers about are:


1. Activation: In the first 30 days of use, all new installations of Windows Vista must be activated by the OEM, through Windows Vista volume licensing technologies, or by the end customer. If Windows Vista is not activated in the first 30 days, the system will operate in a reduced functionality mode.
2. Validation: In order to protect users from being victimized by counterfeit software, and to protect Microsoft’s intellectual property, Windows Vista includes ongoing validation. Through validation, if non-genuine Windows Vista is detected (including non-genuine product keys, cracked or tampered code) the system enters a 30-day grace period. During this time Windows Aero and ReadyBoost features are disabled, and Windows Defender and Windows Update will have limited capabilities (optional updates will not be available through Windows Update, and Windows Defender will only remove critical and severe threats). In addition, during this grace period, a message will appear repeatedly, encouraging the user to take the steps necessary to activate with a genuine product key in order to regain the full value of Windows Vista and to prevent the system from going into a reduced functionality mode.
3. Reduced Functionality: After the repeated prompts above, and if Windows Vista is not activated in the 30-day grace period, the system will operate in a reduced functionality state until a genuine product key is used for activation. In this reduced state, the user will have access to their files and applications, and access to the Internet. However, the desktop will be simplified with only a browser (no Start Menu or Task Bar) and Windows Vista usage will be limited to one hour sessions, at which time the user is forced to log off. Additionally, users may boot the system in Safe Mode in order to access or back-up personal data and applications.


I encourage you to communicate early with customers about the activation changes. For customers that experience reduced functionality, you can help them resolve this by providing them information about how to activate their Windows Vista properly or enable them to purchase a genuine copy.

Learn more to help you discuss this with your customers.

If you serve customers in multiple ways, you may receive a similar communication from the Microsoft OEM team about these new anti-piracy changes. Together, we are working to deliver a great Windows Vista experience for you and for our customers.

Thank you for your business,

Allison Watson
Corporate Vice President
Microsoft Worldwide Partner Group

[format c:]

Continuous validation, This is a better Vista experience?
I have tried the latest release candidate, and all their security is, is nagware and MS spy ware , Yes MS writes spy ware
Reduced functionality = less security
No wonder I am NOT buying vista, Linux is looking really good about now

[Ferrit]

I been on vista for quite a while and i think continued validation refers to acquiring new software same as in XP.

[NooNoo]

Continuous validation, This is a better Vista experience?
I have tried the latest release candidate, and all their security is, is nagware and MS spy ware , Yes MS writes spy ware
Reduced functionality = less security
No wonder I am NOT buying vista, Linux is looking really good about now


If people didn't steal, there would be no need for any of this... no point in blaming MS when the problem is the theives.

[Ferrit]

If people didn't steal, there would be no need for any of this... no point in blaming MS when the problem is the theives.

Agreed:)

[slgrieb]

If people didn't steal, there would be no need for any of this... no point in blaming MS when the problem is the theives.

Well, I think it is worth considering at what point the anti-piracy measures become more of a burden on honest users than on the crooks.

[NooNoo]

Well, I think it is worth considering at what point the anti-piracy measures become more of a burden on honest users than on the crooks.
Agreed, but do you go out of your house without locking all the doors and windows anymore? I find it a royal pain to go back and shut the window that the kids left open when I am trying to get to somewhere in a hurry...

At least the validation is press a button, wait, then continue on for most people.

[slgrieb]

I think you have the analogy wrong, Noo. I'd say the activation and validation issues have become somewhat more like buying a house that requires you to use 3 different keys to unlock 3 different deadbolt locks, and then enter your PIN on a keyboard followed by pressing your thumb to a scanner to biometrically verify your identity so you can open your front door. Which is made of 1/8 inch plywood.

If you spend most of your time working on computers owned by individuals or small business which don't use volume licensing, the whole activation/validation process can be a monumental pain in the rear. Machines which have needed several legitimate reactivations (new hardware, reformats, etc.) and any of the brands which MS seems to think have been sloppy with security and may have leaked OS CDs and product IDs will refuse to reactivate online.

Of course, I always try online activation first, except for those systems that tell me I have to activate before logging on and can't be activated online because I can't install the effing driver for the effing NIC until I can log on. But heck, if you can't activate online, all you have to do is call MS. Their automated system tells you to try online activation first, because doing it by phone takes 6 to 10 minutes.

FINE! Doing the phone activation requires you to speak or manually enter the product ID, and you can't bypass this step even if you already know (per Paragraph 2, that it won't work). After all of this you can speak to a real live person. And the MS support staff have always been unfailingly polite and helpful and have generally given me an activation code immediately.

Except for those times when I had to provide a product number (oh, no, not the model number on the faceplate, but the number on the sticker on the rear of the machine), and sometimes a serial number. And sometimes the place of purchase. Actually, I like it when I get this last question, because it can be fun. As in, "I believe the unit was purchased in Yomammasnose Alaska at the Fat Chance Bar, Grille, and Computer Center." Always gives me a thrill when the support rep thanks me for this information.

What a fun way to spend my time and the customer's money! And of course MS has never had any problems with its Windows Validation/Genuine Advantage Tools, or issues with it's Vista Upgrade editions failing to activate. Or hacked OEM IDs. Fortunately, I bet all of this puts a huge dent in the business of pirates in The People's Republic of China cranking out a few thousand bootlegs a day.

[marviimus]

NooNoo: have to agree w/ slgrieb on this one as well. I'll say this and run from the firestorm it may trigger - I'm kicking myself for spending more money upgrading my PC these last few months, rather than taking the $ and buying a nicely configured G5 and virtually running XP (or Vista) through Mac's Boot Camp software...but the deed's done, and the parts aren't going back, and if it weren't for PC, I'd have to work in the entertainment industry (a fate worse than death!)

[NooNoo]

Slgrieb, I did say for MOST people!!

I didn't say it was the greatest thing going, but I did say if people didn't steal, write malicious code etc, then there would be no need. If you can come up with a better system to ensure that your software is not being pirated or compromised, I am sure MS will pay you handsomely for it!

[Atodini]

Slgrieb,

I tend to side with Noo. It's the pirates who really are to blame for the situation we now find ourselves in! I cannot criticise M$ for trying to protect themselves. Most days I need to reactivate one version or another and I've got it down to about 5 minutes using M$ telephone activation, just through experience as to knowing when the hash key needs to be pressed. Only very rarely do I need to speak to an operator and yes I agree wholeheartedly that they are always very polite and helpful.

For a machine to activate automatically on line is fairly rare recently, as the bulk of my repairs seem to be on branded machies, Dells, e-Machines, Advents, Compaqs etc. I can't recall when any of these have activated automatically - always end up calling M$. I suspect that "big box" block licensed machines may be excluded from on line activation.

M$ have been top of my "friends and family" listing for months:).

I do actually believe that the GWA initiative has had an effect on the counterfeiters, I certainly see far less VLK machines than I did 6 months ago, only one or two a month these days. Time was I was legalising three or four a week..... Nowadays I only need to hold a couple of each version of XP in stock.

Good lord, reading back I've been complimentary to M$!! Either they're getting better or I'm mellowing with old age - Nah! they're getting better:devil:

John

[slgrieb]

There is certainly merit to your arguments guys. I suppose had it not been for the lack of active copy protection schemes on its earlier products such DOS, Windows 1.0 through W2K, Word, Excel, Office, etc. that Microsoft today could possibly be the largest software company on the planet. I can even imagine an alternate reality in which Bill Gates is the wealthiest human in the world.

Certainly, I understand MS desire to be paid for their products, and I'm glad that the small annoyance of activation and validation has boosted MS profits through a decrease in piracy. I also appreciate how MS has shared the benefits of reduced piracy with the consumer by the small, but significant reductions in Vista pricing. I feel my increased stock dividends rolling in as well.

Even though the article is already on Windrivers home page, I'm going to go ahead and post it here because I think it is relevant: http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=379

And how much do you pay for Windows and Office?

Finally I'd say that copy protection itself and schemes to prevent legal users from having simple access to their software does as much to promote piracy as does the "cheap ride/free ride" mentality.

[NooNoo]

So when are you going to give up servicing windows machines on principle slgrieb? ;)

interesting to note though that the US library service (http://www.gatesfoundation.org/UnitedStates/USLibraryProgram/Backgrounder/default.htm) benefits greatly from windows. So perhaps making a profit is a good thing?

[format c:]

Well what has turned me off with activation is when I formatted my hard drive and reinstalled the same OS on the exact same machine and it refused to activate
I was a criminal because I formatted my drive , I do not feel like sitting on the phone typing in a 42 digit number and having it fail then getting some human and going through the process
What I do with my computer is my business , I pay for the use of the software and I want to use it

[NooNoo]

Format C: If it was the same machine and you only formatted and you own the licence, it means that someone else used your licence without your knowledge.

I agree it's your software and you want to use it, but if it was stolen from you, wouldn't you want to spend the time to report it?

[slgrieb]

Actually, Noo, just because format c:'s software failed to activate doesn't automatically prove that someone had illegally used his product ID. Errors in activation systems do happen, even with new products straight from the box. Of course, it is usually only a moderate hassle to resolve these problems. Still, even if format's ID had been stolen, it would seem to be the thief who benefits, while format pays the price.

The lack of copy protection certainly didn't stop MS from becoming the largest software company in the world, and MS has consistently shown a willingness to sell their products very cheaply, give them away, or even subsidize them to gain a strategic advantage. Which indicates that MS has really high margins on their products. In fact, I've seen estimates that the gross margin on Windows is about 95%. Now, there isn't anything inherently wrong in this at all, but I want to reference it later.

So, I'd argue that copy protection schemes do little do deter the large, technically sophisticated, and well financed criminal organizations which practice piracy on a massive scale, while making life just a bit more difficult for the honest guys who actually form the great majority of users. Think about all the news stories showing mountains of bootleg DVDs for sale in Thai markets, while a U.S. citizen can't legally make a backup copy of a movie he buys.

What copy protection has been proven to do beyond any reasonable doubt is to create resentment and frustration on the part of legitimate users, and to spawn entire industries given to circumventing said copy protection. This isn't the first time that copy protection schemes have been prominent in the industry. The last wave of copy protection eventually collapsed under the weight of user complaints, much as DRM in the music industry is feeling the pressure. Eventually, I expect the cycle to repeat itself in the software industry.

The message that copy protection clearly delivers to the customer is "We know you'd steal this product if you could, and we also want to wring every possible cent of profit from you. Occasionally awkward and inconvenient for you? Too bad!" I'd argue that MS might be better off in the long run to accept something like a 94% margin on Windows in exchange for good will. After all, Linux gets better every day, and didn't Mac sales rise something like 35% last quarter?

[NooNoo]

I agree that it is cumbersome and inconvenient. I never said it wasn't. But do you have a better way? I live in a fairly well off area. Every single computer I have seen on this street has at least one piece of pirated software and several gigs of downloaded mp3/dvd. So yah, the respectable church going folk round here steal when given the opportunity.

Do you have a refernce for that profit margin percentage? When you see the size of the department working for 5 years straight, I would doubt that the profit is anywhere near that.

[slgrieb]

Noo, the citation on margin stuck in my head from many years ago. I might find it with enough effort, but here is an article from ZDNet citing margins around 86% for Windows. Admittedly not up to date, but I have only so many hours per day I can spend being grumpy and argumentative: http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-966219.html

As do you, I see lots of machines with bootleg software installed. This still isn't an argument in favor of copy protection. The logical fallacy here is the inherent assumption that if the people who have bootleg products were given an unavoidable choice between purchasing the product or not using it, that they would invariably purchase the product instead of choosing to live without it.

Let me recap my position on copy protection. It is ineffective against the major violators. It breeds an industry to circumvent it. It makes use of the product unduly difficult for the legitimate owners.

I also want to reiterate that the last big push for copy protection some 20 years ago failed due to user opposition. Much of it was corporate. MS is moving down the same path. I still think that history will repeat itself. Really, this isn't much different from the debate about Digital Rights Management issues, and I'd say the handwritting is already on the wall here.

[NooNoo]

I have said I agree, all you are doing is reiterating the problem, do you have another solution?

As for the profit margin...taken in isolation, that would seem excessive, taken as a whole and given that economies of scale allow for much larger profits and that R&D divisions are not included in the calculation (yet everything the R&D people turn out end up in an MS product) then I think the margins given are "headlines" and do not truly reflect the situation.

How much of your phone call is profit? How much profit on ram? Processors? All of these things have high profit margins which inturn pay R&D, new products and infrastructure maintenance.

Profit percentage is somewhat of a red herring in this debate.

The debate is, how do you stop people from stealing?

[slgrieb]

The debate is, how do you stop people from stealing?

Well, I don't believe any of my posts have addressed the broad topic of preventing people from stealing, per se. And I certainly never understood that was what you meant to say, Noo, as opposed to a more restricted discussion of copy protection. All I have ever said is that copy protection is not an effective tool to prevent piracy, and that it tends to be more of a burden on legitimate users than thieves. Well, it also creates resentment, etc.

Anyway, in case anyone is curious about how well product activation and WGA have curbed piracy, you might want to read this: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070124-8690.html

There are a couple of different ways to interpret these numbers. Either we can take the high rate of WGA failures at face value and conclude that activation and validation don't seem to have curbed piracy much, or that the piracy figures derived from these numbers are exaggerated. Win/win for my position on copy protection, I think.

Microsoft expects huge sales gains in China, but copy protection isn't being credited; rather improved enforcement by the Chinese Government gets the nod. In particular, I suggest you look at the percentage of legal copies of Windows installed Q1 of last year. See: http://news.com.com/Microsoft+2007+China+sales+to+rise+20+percent/2100-1016_3-6174762.html

Fun, but less reliable: http://www.newlaunches.com/archives/only_244_copies_of_genuine_windows_vista_sold_in_c hina.php

Am I the only one who questions piracy figures? http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,20713160%5E15306%5E%5Enbv%5E,00.html

[NooNoo]

The arstechnica report says nothing about curbing piracy, it only gives figures about WGA failures and the frustrating lack of the breakdown of figures given thus far by Microsoft.

China has always been a problem, and will continue to be for some time, they are only half way there and the Australian report is about how to compile lost revenue figures based on numbers of items pirated - it asks essentially would a person who pirated a music track have bought that track if it wasn't available as a pirated version?

Each time I have replied, I have asked you for another solution... have you got one?

[slgrieb]

Noo, I feel we are going around in circles here! I keep saying that copy protection is an ineffective solution to software piracy. You don't really ever dispute this contention, but you just keep asking for an alternative answer. You are really starting to sound like our President on the subject of Iraq! In both cases, I advocate immediate withdrawal.

If you are asking me how to prevent theft, my answer is "you can't!" The best you can hope do is manage your losses. So, I'd contend that dropping copy protection on software and relying on conventional police work to bust the big pirates is more effective.

What does the Arstechnica article mean? Well, if 24% of Windows installations fail WGA, then Microsoft's copy protection measures would be largely ineffective. If the system is generating a lot of false positives, then many legitimate Windows licensees could be unfairly deprived of the right to download updates. The fact that MS doesn't want to go into detail about WGA results suggests that MS feels that the tool is not very accurate.

As an alternative position, I suppose you could contend that the 24% failure rate is correct, and that had it not been for Windows Activation, the piracy rate would be even higher. Frankly, I don't think MS worst-case predictions would suggest this as reasonable, and I doubt anecdotal evidence from those of us in the business could support those numbers either.

So, my alternative to copy protection would be "conventional law enforcement." The article about Australia's AG is just meant to suggest that companies tend to overstate their losses from piracy. Personally, I find it pretty compelling.

Just so things are clear, I'd say if you want to reduce piracy, enforcement from local governments is the key issue, and copy protection is ineffective. My alternative is better basic law enforcement and Governmental cooperation.

[format c:]

The solution to stealing is an open source alternative if it is available and compatible with your system
I just recommended Open Office 2.1 to a young man at work since he could not afford the MS price tag
I use the same office package
For an OS I would recommend Kubuntu 7.04 , I have loaded a box with it and will be testing it out, My laptop will be getting a Kubuntu upgrade so that the wireless will work
The only problem I have with activation and DRM is that it makes the product a hassle to use
All I can offer to the person tempted to steal is to look for an open source alternative

[NooNoo]

Just so things are clear, I'd say if you want to reduce piracy, enforcement from local governments is the key issue, and copy protection is ineffective. My alternative is better basic law enforcement and Governmental cooperation.

So rather than press a button on a web page and maybe have to make a free phone call, you think that sending a human into a house to audit how many times they have installed a single user licence?

If a neighbour hates you and reports you for copyright infringement and a policman is sent round to investigate, wouldn't that piss you off more?