Microsoft Doesn't Trust You
|
News Commentary. But you knew that, right? |
On the same day Microsoft called for "End-to-End Trust," the company quietly announced new piracy pop-ups for Office that show how little the company trusts end users.
Microsoft buried the announcement in an innocent-sounding press Q&A "Microsoft's Genuine Software Initiative Makes Steady Progress on Protecting Customers." Clearly I'm too dependent on RSS, and need to get out to Microsoft's PressPass site more often. I totally missed this one, because it didn't come through to my RSS reader. But I got every other press release issued in the last two weeks (checked on that late this afternoon). Am I suspicious? You betcha.
The Q&A, with Cori Hartje, Genuine Software Initiative worldwide director, gets down to business on the last question. Hartje said that "Microsoft will soon introduce an Office Genuine Advantage [OGA] Notifications pilot program in Chile, Italy, Spain and Turkey that will be distributed through a voluntary Microsoft update."
That sentence should send shivers down the spine of every respectable Microsoft customer. Microsoft's last Notifications program, for Windows, brought heaps of trouble to the company and its customers. Once again, Microsoft will use its updater to distribute an onerous and intrusive anti-piracy mechanism that gets in end users' faces.
Hartje makes out that OGA Notifications are in end users' best interests, "designed to help alert customers who have acquired and are using non-genuine Office." But like Windows Genuine Advantage notifications, Microsoft punishes customers' for the piracy of others. What Hartje and her anti-piracy cohorts want are the distributors of counterfeit software; customers are victimized twice, by the pirates and, again, by Microsoft.
"Once notified, customers can take action to reduce the risk of running counterfeit software by getting genuine Office through the online purchase programs or by going to a local authorized Microsoft reseller," Hartje reportedly said. That's where Office buyers have the privilege of paying a second time for the software.
I've long criticized Microsoft's Genuine Advantage approach. The implicit message is one of distrust, that customers are thieves. Microsoft gains tactical benefits from the Genuine Advantage programs and even curbs some piracy. But I'm convinced brand damage offsets any anti-piracy gains.
In December, my copy of Office 2007 issued a counterfeit warning when I tried to validate a download. Even though I knew the software was legit, the counterfeit accusation made me feel bad, like I had done something wrong when I knew that I hadn't. There was a sense of powerlessness, too, because the validation failure also restricted my access to Office Online. What then, if I had notices popping up from the Windows toolbar reminding that I was a thief. Luckily, I resolved the problem, but what if I hadn't? What about other end users innocently caught?
Microsoft could use a carrot to entice customers to do the right thing. Instead, there is a club beating them senseless. That's not an overstatement. When Microsoft launched Windows Genuine Advantage in 2005 (pilots started in 2004), the framework was one of reward. Legitimate customers would receive rewards for doing the right thing. Instead, Microsoft mostly took stuff available for free and put it behind a wall with a security validation door. My criticism would be more muted if Microsoft actually offered something more to end users.
Then there is the distribution mechanism. Last month, blogs and news sites condemned Apple for using its updater to distribute Safari 3.1 to Windows users. Microsoft uses its updater to distribute potentially intrusive pop-up notifications that in polite words accuse the customers stealing. If OGA Notifications follow the path of their WGA predecessor, an opt-in program will be opt-out and later no choice. But during the WGA Notifications pilot, the update description made the download appear to be important and necessary.
Microsoft announced the first OGA pilot in April 2006, but until today stayed away from the nasty Notifications program. The original OGA program was opt-in and later necessary opt-in to gain access to Office Online resources. Notifications will end any choice, again, if the OGA program follows the path of its WGA predecessor.
I don't like the mechanism, and I always use legit software. How about you? Please share with everyone in the comments.
Comments (41)
This will push more people toward Open Office, regardless if they have a legit copy of MSFT Office or not.
Smart move.
Not everyone has a Genuine MSFT Mouse. How about GMM? Genuine Microsoft Mouse. So if we don't have a GMM, we can't get on the internet. Maybe I should get a job a MSFT.
Whats next?
GTP ?
Genuine Toilet Paper?
lol
Posted by Ralph | April 8, 2008 11:55 PM
Not to worry. I have my GENUINE/LEGIT copy of OpenOffice in my crappy Windowz and in my beautiful Ubuntu :-)
So, screw you MS and your spyware/backdoor sh*t!
Posted by Nuno | April 9, 2008 5:21 AM
Linux sucks! I tried to download OGA from the Microsoft website and it won't install. ;)
Posted by Opensource | April 9, 2008 8:24 AM
"Land of the Free"? Don't make me laugh! Only big business is free: free to do what it likes and consumer law is powerless to stop it.
Whatever its faults, and they are many, Linux is an attempt to give the consumer his or her freedom back. It deserves to succeed for that reason alone.
Bill Gates poses as a philanthropist with his foundation but, like the robber barons of old, his business practices are aggressive and cut-throat. Much the same can be said of the other IT leaders.
If we had a decent government that wasn't in hock to these people, consumers would get the fair treatment they're entitled to. We might even get a universal API that would allow programs to run on Windows, Linux/Unix, and Mac OS X - then, companies would have to compete on quality.
Posted by Josh Muller | April 9, 2008 9:43 AM
Please stop your babbling. Its there software and you chose to buy it. Once you accept the EULA, everything is fair game. Microsoft has to protect their intellectual property, its their given right not yours to decide. Company's like Microsoft and Adobe lose billions per year in software piracy and casual copiers do copy Office and Windows and give it to their friends. Just the other day in class, persons who are average consumers were copying Windows XP. A friend asked me, Andre, is it ok to take a copy of that XP AIO from 'the person'? I said no, because its a pirated volume license that Microsoft will check against their database of product ids that will indicate that it is not legit.
The person distributing the pirated software, insisted it is not pirated and that it came from and original copy of XP. But I informed him, Microsoft does not license any special version of XP that comes with XP Pro Corporate, XP Pro retail, XP Home, XP MCE. He insisted, its legit and about 5 persons in class took a copy of that XP AI0. I told them, you are up for trouble.
So to get back on point, consumers consciously do take pirated software and Microsoft has to be the one to inform them. So, stop with your defending the innocent defense. Please take into consideration, these people are are running XP Home or Vista Home Basic. But because they see the word Professional, they assume its better and want to put it on their machine regardless its pirated. Also, the persons who receive machines with pirated copies of XP Professional are not at fault its the OEMs who load the machine. So Microsoft is just informing the consumer their machine is not running an authorized copy.
In fact, Microsoft has a program, that allows you to exchange the pirated disk for a legit copy of Windows, just as long as you provide a receipt in addition to the name of the Company you purchased the machine from.
Posted by Andre Da Costa | April 9, 2008 10:36 AM
So, Andre, how would you defend Microsoft's penchant for using the intellectual property of others smaller then them and using it to build a market while the pilfered company is forced to attempt to redress the problem in the lengthy legal process.
I suppose you support Microsoft's right to use their large assets to take what they deem useful without regard to ownership rights there.
Posted by portuno | April 9, 2008 11:42 AM
For home users I wholeheartedly recommend OpenOffice. It is great and no annoyances and simple to use. I have used it to create documents, spreadsheets, presentations, you name it. I have had very (I mean VERY) little problem with MS Office compatibility. I can open, edit, create, back-and-forth between OpenOffice and MS Office. And BEST of all, it is free and legally free. Second best-of-all: I never have to worry about OGA pop-ups. Third best-of-all: Not a resource hog. You need an email/contact/calendar program similar to Outlook (OpenOffice does not include one), just use Mozilla Thunderbird with the Lightning add-on. Oh yeah, fourth best-of-all: It all works with Windows OR Linux.
MS might end up shooting themselves in the foot with this OGA crap. Perhaps this will give businesses an incentive to switch. Enough of this garbage of worrying about your office suite being gelded because MS had a glitch with their OGA servers. It can happen.
Andre is right. If you want MS software, you have to accept their EULA and live with it. But you DON'T need their software. There are other alternatives.
Don't get me wrong about MS Office though. I do have Office 2007 and I do love it, but this OGA garbage might make me lose the love. I have a legit copy and if I get ONE notice that I am a pirate, off it goes and I will use every resource at my disposal to get a refund. Even if I don't get a refund, I will make them spend more than I paid for Office just fighting my pursuit of the refund! HA!
Posted by Bob Maine | April 9, 2008 12:14 PM
I'm sorry, I meant to bring this up. I cannot believe MS is losing $ here in the U.S. on pirated copies of Windows XP. At least not much now. Who would want or need a copy of Windows XP? If you didn't get Windows XP on your computer, more than likely your computer is over 7 years old. And who is now upgrading their 1999 Windows 98 computer to Windows XP? Good luck with that slow old dinosaur! Perhaps some people with Vista are "upgrading" to Windows XP, but are not eligible to "upgrade". Well at least MS got their money for the Vista OS! They want you to pay again for an OS by purchasing a copy of XP. OK, here is an instance I can see being a blatant robber of MS. If you build your own computer and scrimp on the cost by using a pirated copy of XP. That I am sure does happen. But I am telling you, that audience is not that big. The overwhelming majority of people are going to buy their computers retail with a copy of Windows pre-installed. You can't build your own computer as cheap as HP or Dell can. As Andre has stated, some are "upgrading" their PC's to XP Pro Corp. Yep, illegal. Is MS actually losing money though? Nope. These people are installing the same basic OS, but with features they will not, or cannot use anyway. So, if these people were not able to get a pirated copy of Windows XP Pro Corp., were they going to go out and pay hundreds of dollars for a copy? Nope. So MS is not out any money. Yep, it is illegal, I am not arguing that. It's just a stupid argument to say that MS is losing money on this type of pirating. So MS will use all these resources and time so that illegal users of Windows XP Pro Corp will have their systems gelded, remove WXPPROCorp and go back to Windows XP Home. WHATEVER!
OK, I have a question. Let's say I have a PC that came with Windows XP Home SP1 OEM pre-installed. After some years it gets bloated and slow. Now I want to format and re-install Windows XP from scratch. Oh, but HP did not give me a Windows XP CD, nor restore discs. Also, I want to use all my hard drive, so I delete their restore partition. Now my buddy has a copy of Windows XP Home SP1 OEM. I borrow his disc, copy it, give him back his original. Then I install Windows XP from my CD copy, but I use MY license and key from the sticker on the side of the PC. If I did that, would that be technically legal? I am just curious.
Posted by Bob Maine | April 9, 2008 12:37 PM
@Josh,
"We might even get a universal API that would allow programs to run on Windows, Linux/Unix, and Mac OS X ..."
That already exists. It is POSIX, defined by IEEE standard 1003 and ISO/IEC 9945. Windows offers POSIX compatibility. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POSIX for more info.
Posted by Karl | April 9, 2008 1:47 PM
geez portuno is still here pumping his crappy penny stock company with the overly broad (IAHO) patents & whining the whole time about it.
what does anyone think? that's why there is a legal system portunodolt, so that allegedly agrieved companies can seek legal redress.
as far as MSFT taking anything, it seems by reading yours (& your other nym's posts), no one can do anything on the internet without allegedly infringing on your crappy penny stock company's patents.
Posted by Al | April 9, 2008 2:31 PM
Al has a technology knowledge deficit that prevents him from being able to explain all his claims, therefore, I choose to ask questions of others who might be a bit more informed than Al.
I also expect to be able to discuss things with folks who are a bit less profane and crude than Al.
Anyone who's read any of original_al's posts will know what I'm talking about. http://search.messages.yahoo.com/search?.mbintl=finance&q=the_original_al_coholic_2004&action=Search&r=Huiz75WdCYfD_KCA2Dc-&within=author&within=tm
I think he has a thing for me and doesn't know how to express himself in a loving way.
Posted by portuno | April 9, 2008 4:04 PM
oh boy. here we go again with i-menst, now disguised as portuno. wtf? you i-menst are a bloody worthless piece of dung, just like your penny stock.
Posted by Tom Berber | April 9, 2008 4:07 PM
Andre, you're absolutely right on your comments. Microsoft has every single right to do what it is doing. Unfortunately this "program" can also backfire. As more people are "informed" they have a pirated copy they'll either have to pay or find a free option (Open Office?). Hence Microsoft's dominance in that market could get hit. There is always the option of hitting No in the EULA and using something else.
Posted by Gerardo Tasistro | April 9, 2008 4:37 PM
And you, "Tom", are a wonderful person full of love and happiness. Unfortunately, you forgot to pick up a valid point of view on your way out of the delivery room. Not having one of those for your entire life ahs left you stunted and misinformed... and unable to make accurate characterizations.
I post as portuno_diamo. You seem to have me confused with someone else. Either that or you are continually confused.
Posted by portuno | April 9, 2008 6:53 PM
Here's an interesting scenario: You install a genuine/official copy of Office 2007 on your laptop, and somehow this OGA ("Oh God, Again!"?) software gets installed. You're running a presentation for a client or even worse a conference, and this "your copy of Office may be pirated you naughty naughty boy" message gets displayed in front of your now ex-client and colleagues. Remember, this is a FALSE POSITIVE!
So, could Microsoft be liable for slander (by the US legal definition)? Or sued for defamation, loss of earnings, etc?
This OGA, like WGA before it, is a major lawsuit waiting to happen. And as Joe says, I really don't see how Microsoft benefits from these programs - unless 100% negative press and increased legal costs are considered "benefits" in Redmond...
Posted by M J Marshall | April 9, 2008 7:33 PM
Anyone who has not already done so should read "Establishing End to End Trust." the paper. If my analysis is correct, then all of those complaining about Vista (and soon Office) constantly authenticating and have accused MicroSoft of "selling out" have completely missed the point.
MicroSoft Corporate Vice President Scott Charney's conclusions are telling: "But a key
question remains: As we become increasingly dependent on the Internet for all our daily activities, can we maintain a globally connected, anonymous, untraceable Internet and be dependent on devices that run arbitrary code of unknown provenance? If the answer to that is 'no,' then we need to create a more authenticated and audited Internet environment--one in which people have the
information they need to make good trust choices." One of the essential components to that vision is software authentication: "The operating system must be verifiable based upon keys stored in the hardware (e.g., 'trusted boot'). This allows the device to claim that the operating system has not been tampered with to bad effect."
I think that there are striking similarities between this and "Digital Rights Management" and "Windows Genuine Advantage?"
It now seems clear that DRM is not a feature imposed by the recording industry. It is MicroSoft's vision of the future, and "Genuine Advantage" is a prototype for "trusted computing." This would explain why both "Genuine Advantage" authentication and DRM were bundled into the operating system, rather than into a DVD player or driver (DRM) or required only for initial activation (WGA). It also explains why the dysfunctional and intensely unpopular "Genuine Advantage" is now being added to applications (such as the Office suite), against the better judgment and advice of those who only look at the implications for retail (not OEM) sale of software.
Charney made it perfectly clear that this is about radically transforming the way that we use the internet: "Thus, this paper is an invitation to discuss how one might fundamentally 'change the game,' and . . . create a meaningfully more secure and privacy-enhanced Internet."
If this were only to apply to MicroSoft products, it would be MicroSoft's suicide note. Instead, EVERY action on the desktop, the network, or the internet is to require constant authentication, unless you want to be an island. If you do not want to play "the game," you will just have to sit on the sidelines. It seems that MicroSoft expects to provide the tools, or at least to set the standards. Linux/BSD/Darwin--if MicroSoft has its way, you will be captured by its net.
Posted by Pinball | April 9, 2008 8:21 PM
@Tom Berber: Clearly, you do not understand anything about identifying authors by their writing styles. Portuno and I-Man have as much in common as Shakespear and Mark Twain.
Posted by Pinball | April 9, 2008 8:24 PM
I'll crack it. Just like I cracked WGA.
Posted by LtJackboot | April 9, 2008 9:49 PM
The only MS software I have is the OS and Flight Simulator. Now if somebody comes up with an OS that runs all my Windows Software and doesn't require a whole lot of hard work to learn, Windows would be relegated to my attic.
Posted by Bernie | April 9, 2008 11:30 PM
Doesn't matter, I-Menst and Portonumbnuts love to abuse this site and spew crap about penny crap stock. They are so full of it that it is coming out of their mouths and it stinks to high heaven. They need to keep their stink within the confines of Yahoo finance. IF and I mean IF I-Menst and Portonumbnuts ARE truly different individuals, I-Menst sure had a field day copying and pasting Portonumbnuts Yahoo finance posts. It's a post alright... A com-post!
Posted by Tom Berber | April 10, 2008 1:07 AM
Now, I ask the audience, have I said anything overtly about VCSY? I don't believe I have. What I have tried to do is to inform the reader of the sea change happening in the current state of application technology as compared to the proprietary desktop software owned by the OS manufacturers.
If you had some technological background, you should be able to discuss what the patents from the company you've said I "spew crap" about say about what's happening in the industry.
Isn't it "coincidental" the patents predict what's happening out in the open now?
How long did Microsoft think it would stay bottled up? Forever? These kinds of disruptive changes can't be stopped. They can only be slowed down for a time. But, when productivity and common sense discover advantages, all the borders start dissolving.
So, toodles "Tom". You have a nasty self-righteous disposition that does not win friends. You also don't have a clue with what's going on in the industry. If you did, your self-righteousness would come up with something to counter the things I've said. But you can't, can you?
That's a shame. You're just as bereft of knowledge as you are of civility.
Posted by portuno | April 10, 2008 1:46 AM
In the round, Microsoft's tactics have succeeded in knocking them from a recent Favourites Brand List #1 position in 1996 to #59 in 2008, with the rate falling faster. This does support views that their attitude to customers is just plain wrong. It is a very good thing there are good solid alternatives to Office now.
Posted by Chris Clark | April 10, 2008 4:35 AM
Users should avoid this hassle altogether and just use OpenOffice. Why give Micro$oft the opportunity to insult you by calling you a thief? Why let them install spyware/snoopware on your PC?
Posted by Maddog | April 10, 2008 5:35 AM
@Bob Maine: actually the suggested option is not a legal one (I'm an ex-msft employee). There are several things wrong with the scenario that you suggest:
* Software may not be copied. Your friend does not have the redistrbution rights on windows and therefor can not give you the cd for copying
* It is against the license agreement to but Windows bits on a cd, so copying the cd on another cd is not legal
* Then you install the XP cd on your machine. However the cd that you have now is not the same cd as that HP would have provided you. (HP has the license to create their own cds and are not the same as the SystemBuilder Channel Cds.
So to be short, your scenarios isn't legal in any way, and there are multiple things that you shouldn't do :-)
However, on the office side this is a plausible thing to do for Microsoft. only ~14-17% of all consumer offices are paid. Microsoft is indeed losing a lot of money with the illegal office versions and a lot of people don't even know that their office is not legal. OGA will drive awareness to those consumers and other office users.
Is this the right way to go? I believe that the only right way to go is to buy your software properly.
Posted by Hugo Leijtens | April 10, 2008 6:16 AM
Portonumbnuts/I-Menst: same old crap... Blah, Blah, Blah. You never can keep to topic because of your agenda. Oh, and if you are NOT I-Menst, funny that you would mention VCSY. I certainly didn't. I only mentioned piece of crap penny stocks. And you knew right away it was VCSY!
By the way, the governor of California called. He wants his arm back!
Posted by Tom Berber | April 10, 2008 7:26 AM
@Hugo Leijtens
You answered my question. Thanks!
If you don't mind, can you tackle another for me? Suppose they are the same brand PC and I were not to copy the CD, but just use it to install XP? It's not that I am trying to save the $10 or $20 I would be charged for a CD. I am just getting a huge runaround with customer service and now they are telling me that they do not provide them if you do not opt for one at the time of PC purchase. The time I have wasted is probably getting near the price I would pay for a retail copy of XP Home, but that is still almost $200!
My buddy and I bought PCs of the same brand at close to the same time. Somehow I missed the "CD copy Windows XP" checkbox when I ordered. Obviously this is an older PC (Windows XP Home SP1) and I had given it to my daughter. It has since slowed to a crawl. It is full of adware, spyware and God knows what else. I would just rather make it nice and lean from scratch.
That makes me think of something else. I wonder why Microsoft doesn't offer a CD, for those with a valid license, for a nominal fee. Even $20 would be fine. Maybe it is too small a market? Or maybe it has to do with the license with the PC manufacturer?
Posted by Bob Maine | April 10, 2008 8:00 AM
@Hugo Leijtens, I'm delighted you bring numbers to the discussion. If what you say is true then the MS Office "standard" is only 20% legit(at best). If all the illegal copies of MS Office were to shutdown today, Microsoft's claim that MS Office is a defacto standard would crumble down in a second.
Now if the other 80% were to rush out and buy legal copies. Would Microsoft drop the price? Over the years I've seen the cost of MS Office rise and rise. Even when there is a broader market. Is that rightful? Obviously Microsoft is entitled to that, but should it? Maybe you don't see this in the US and Europe. People make good money over there, but in other countries the same does not hold.
What Bob says is very true. If MS Office "legality" is enforced in such a way that the only way to use it is by legal acquisition. Then yes, Microsoft's market share would drop dramatically. Particularly in emerging economies.
Take for example Mexico. Here MS Office Professional costs 30% more than in the US (aprox $654.00 USD). And I'm being generous on the exchange rate. That's a monthly income for a great deal of people here (a great deal of fortunate people, others make much less). MS Office Home-Student edition is aprox 20% more expensive than in the US. All this can be seen by comparing the Office Depot price list (www.officedepot.com and www.officedepot.com.mx). I'm using an $11.00 Pesos to the US Dollar rate.
The list goes on and on. Windows Vista Home Premium Full is aprox 40% more expensive than in the US while Ultimate Full is 79% more expensive. Business Full is aprox 42% more expensive.
Am I driving the point clear enough? It isn't that they don't want to pay for it. They just don't have the money to pay for it. And even if they did sometimes they won't pay for it. A former job I had decided to use Open Office rather than purchase MS Office. Did they have the money? Sure they did. But when confronted with the decision to buy something or use something that is free, but has the same functionality for them, they opted Open Office.
I agree with you that the only way to go is to buy your software properly. Or better said, the only way to go is to have a legal copy of it. Because you don't always need to buy your software to own a legal copy if there are options that work and are free.
Maybe you and I are in a privileged position. We can go to the store, swipe the card and take our software. We must realize though that for many out there this is not the case and the price tag on Microsoft products is way above their pay rate. In these cases what Bob Maine says holds. It is a market share that will not buy the software at current prices so Microsoft will not be seeing a penny from them. They might see them switching to other products though. Undermining Microsoft's "dominance" in the market and "removing" MS Office file format as the defacto standard. How many people, of the 80% using illegal copies, do you really think will actually rush out and buy the real thing? My bet is around 20%, 30% max.
Posted by Gerardo Tasistro | April 10, 2008 8:45 AM
@Bernie: Checkout Wine (free, in both senses of the word) and Crossover (a commercially supported version of Wine, by Codeweavers) for running your MicroSoft-ware on Linux or Mac. We can keep feeding the monster, until MicroSoft's digital rights management-genuine advantage technology haunts all computing, "End to End," as V.P. Charney envisions.
Posted by Pinball | April 10, 2008 8:54 AM
Sorry. That last line should have continued with, "or we can boycot all MicroSoft products."
Posted by Pinball | April 10, 2008 9:00 AM
Tom, you seem very upset. You know that's not good for your blood pressure. You also know it's certainly not going to keep me from posting. In fact, it only causes people to pay more attention.
Thanks.
Posted by portuno | April 10, 2008 9:26 AM
I-Menst/portonumbnuts:
Yeah right. We all know you are having a stroke because your hype-and-dump scam isn't working on your penny stocks. I read one of your posts that you bought them based on email tips you received. Um, you didn't know those were scams? So now you want to pump the prices up to get your money back. Pathetic, even for you.
Posted by Tom Berber | April 10, 2008 11:01 AM
@Bob, this is a good one. Actually you shouldn't ask a microsoft person this question, but someone from your pc manufacturer. If they don't mind, I don't think its a problem. In any way I don't think there is any harm done when you just try it and see if it works.
@Gerardo, thanks for the market insight! Here in europe the market is so different. Fortunately I don't have to think about office marketshare anymore, I'll leave that up to Microsoft now.
For me personally, I like the software from Microsoft. It furfills the promise for me, in my home and for my (mobile) work. Running Vista & Office 2007 has been very smooth for me and it works out great.
This week I started to evaluate the ASUS eeePC. This pc was preloaded with openoffice and I gave that a try on all products. I can't say that I'm really excited, but the evaluation is not finished yet. I'll try to look at the value of openoffice.
For now, goodnight from Amsterdam
Posted by Hugo Leijtens | April 10, 2008 9:31 PM
@Hugo
I called my PC manufacturer and the customer support person wasn't very sure of himself. He said what you did... Try it and see if it works. I asked him if it was legal. He said that if it activates online, PROBABLY. Probably? He claimed that as long as it is the exact same version, i.e. XP Home SP1, and it came from them, he didn't see any reason why not. So I will just give it a try and obviously not format out my drive that contains the restore partition, just in case. If it doesn't work or WGA rejects it down the road, I can just restore it to factory restore and do my best cleaning out the trial software garbage. But I think you are right. If it is the same exact version from that manufacturer and it activates online, it should be legal and ok.
Thanks, I appreciate the input and advice.
Posted by Bob Maine | April 11, 2008 2:13 PM
Well, it works. It activated over the internet and passed WGA. I am sure the XP Home SP1 disc I used from my buddy is identical to the one I would have received with my system, so I should be good to go. I copied (did a back-up) of the original restore partition from my manufacturer and burned it to a DVD. Then I used the XP disc to delete all partitions, create 1 partition and installed XP. Everything went through without a hitch. Activated, installed SP2, installed just the couple drivers I needed and did a complete Windows update. It runs great. Solid, fast and stable. This four-year-old system with XP feels faster than my 6 month old high-end PC with Vista.
Posted by Bob Maine | April 14, 2008 1:02 PM
Just another wack on the hands for all of us who do have to tinker with our PC's. I have to call Microsoft to reactivate Visa and Office at least once a month after a driver update or HW configuration change on my gaming hard drive. You'd think that using a triple boot configuration might be difficult but I found it much easier than a single drive system under XP or vista with weekly calls to reactivate Microsoft office after driver or bios updates. Anyone notice that MS seems now want to license by device as in per hard drive, just await until they want money for every partition your forced to install XP VISTA or Office on just to enjoy a game or get some real work done. Its not customer service, its servicing customers, I feel like such a whore...
Posted by Dar Game | April 16, 2008 1:03 PM
If a copy of Office or Windows is found to be counterfeit, then Microsoft has an obligation to replace the counterfeit copy with a genuine copy. It's not the customer's responsibility. It's Microsoft's.
Posted by Topaz | April 16, 2008 1:51 PM
Most people are not buying genuine software and are still able to get away with it.
I bought a windows vista home basic and office 2007 from microsoft, My friend downloaded a pirated copy from the internet which comes with the activation cracks and stuff.
Now he makes me look like a fool for spending money on thing you can get for free.
To make things worse he could download updates from microsoft updates and other facilities just like me.
That was just too much, If one can get almost genuine without even spending a penny people would be tempted to pirate.
But microsoft tagged my legal copy of office2007 as pirated but my friend was able to get away with it.
You see what microsoft doing is base treachery to their customers.
You need to call them Office NON-Genuine Advantage and Windows NON-Genuine Advantage
Posted by Prem | May 18, 2008 2:52 AM
I have just sent a blistering email to MS asking them what the hell they are getting at I purchased both a PC and Laptop fom large Nsational Retailers and they are now being accused of not downloading genuine MS products. I am sure they won't be happy with MS. The suggestion to go to Open Office sounds good to me.
Posted by Rod Gourlie | March 18, 2009 7:37 AM
I have just sent a blistering email to MS asking them what the hell they are getting at I purchased both a PC and Laptop fom large Nsational Retailers and they are now being accused of not downloading genuine MS products. I am sure they won't be happy with MS. The suggestion to go to Open Office sounds good to me.
Posted by Rod | March 18, 2009 7:38 AM
People:
We are actively considering action on this matter. Having purchased a new laptop, which came with an OEM Microsoft Office Student 2007 edition, and at the same time purchased the Upgrade to Office Professional 2007 (I'm holding up the original media with the legit keys and packaging), we're getting "crap" from Microsoft's Genuine software. It's making false accusations that the software isn't genuine, but we have no real recourse to hold them accountable form libelous accusations. The scenario is this: We installed the update with no problems. Then too the SP1 update. Following that, we launched One Note to see what it was capable of, but it wouldn't accept the license key for Office Pro, so the student key was used. However, that appeared to invalidated our installation. At no point, however, did Microsoft's software show that we were using the Pro edition. Could it be that there is a bug in Microsoft's code? While I can't believe that Microsoft would release code with a bug in it, what happens in the unlikely situation that there code doesn't work? Oh my, the accusations fly. Anyone else see this?
Posted by Randy | March 21, 2009 12:45 AM
People:
We are actively considering action on this matter. Having purchased a new laptop, which came with an OEM Microsoft Office Student 2007 edition, and at the same time purchased the Upgrade to Office Professional 2007 (I'm holding up the original media with the legit keys and packaging), we're getting "crap" from Microsoft's Genuine software. It's making false accusations that the software isn't genuine, but we have no real recourse to hold them accountable form libelous accusations. The scenario is this: We installed the update with no problems. Then too the SP1 update. Following that, we launched One Note to see what it was capable of, but it wouldn't accept the license key for Office Pro, so the student key was used. However, that appeared to invalidated our installation. At no point, however, did Microsoft's software show that we were using the Pro edition. Could it be that there is a bug in Microsoft's code? While I can't believe that Microsoft would release code with a bug in it, what happens in the unlikely situation that there code doesn't work? Oh my, the accusations fly. Anyone else see this?
Posted by Randy | March 21, 2009 12:49 AM