[PLUG] WPA - was WipeInfo Equivalent

[m0gely]

someone wrote:

> Dell Inspiron 5100 P4 2.8 Ghz...  I had to call Microsoft to install to
> vmware.  My girlfriend had to reinstall an OEM version of Windows XP 
> directly on her Celeron desktop and ended up having to call, she 
> didn't change any hardware.  Neither one of us was trying to install 
> to a different computer.

My comment was directed towards this "Microsoft is trying to restrict
legit use more than piracy".  If you're experience is much less 
tolerance from Windows for installed software or re-installation w/o any 
hardware changes, I'm not disputing that.  I just look at it as 5 to 10 
to minutes out of your day when it happened.  Does any other software or 
OS do this?  Well no for the most part but more are jumping on the 
"activation" bandwagon all the time.  And they're certainly not doing it 
to discourage legit users.  You're in a small minority. I would be 
surprised if MS hit 5% of a legit install base of Windows in some Asian 
countries.  This and casual copying is why WPA exists.

The desire to run commercial closed source software is no more wrong 
than a person who prefers open source, it's just different.  Both come 
with caveats.  I bet you've spent a lot more time hacking away at why 
some app didn't install/run or compile on your linux machine 100 fold 
more than WPA took out of your life, right?  I know this is the case 
with me and using FreeBSD, but I know this comes with the territory.

> How is Microsoft supposed to keep a call
> center staffed indefinitely for people to call in and reactivate 
> their copy of Windows?  If Microsoft is underpaying people in India,
> is this something any of us should be supporting?

As I said, Win9x is still supported with what updates are still 
available via Windows Update.  The same will be with XP.  You can 
speculate all you want, but it is years away when anything on this will 
be known either way.

> If you have a lot of custom software for NT4.0 that you don't want to
> port to something else, that can be a good enough reason to keep NT 4.0.

You can run NT4 for as long as you like.  Just like *any* OS which has 
reached the end of it's life cycle, you just need to take the proper 
precautions for where it's used, be it public or private in nature.  But 
eventually when the only hardware available never had drivers for NT4 
written for it, you'll port. :)

> There will come a time when you don't want to fight activation
> mOgerly.  A time will come when having to call someone will be 
> asking too much of you, especially if the call center ever shuts 
> down or you lose phone service and can't call out.

For now, activation is small on the list of things I don't like about 
MS.  Far more important to me are their business practices among other 
things.  Personally I see myself owning a Mac as my primary computer in 
the future, or getting to the point FreeBSD can be what I primarily use. 
  I'm tied to it because of a couple apps though.

> Why mogerly are you defending WPA by saying that it's not the 
> big deal as I'm making it out to be?

eh, it's "m0gely".  You know, like in the Disney flick, but l337? ;)

Because in my experience, it's not.  I know some people have had bad 
experiences with it, and for some more recently it has even involved 
re-installing the OS to make WPA happy.  This would suck.  I just know 
it's not true for the masses, and dispute your implication that MS seems 
to be targeting legit users more so than piracy.

> I've seen ReactOS bashed 

Eh, good luck to them, but they are not a realistic option in any 
regard.  They run a *very limited* set of actual Windows applications, 
none of which are productivity based.  It's just not even a 
consideration.  What does ReactOS have over Ubuntu?

-- 
- m0gely