From: "Robert Comer" 

> First one that comes to mind: it would prevent tracking via the disk
> serial number.

Okay, but I don't think that would be the easiest way to track a PC.

>Why put the serial number there in the first place if
> it is not being used?  If it is being used, why expose the same number
> each for each use?

A lot of copy protection schemes use it, so programs that use it would be
useless on that PC.  MS isn't the first, or only one that uses it as a
determiner that it's the same PC.  I don't like copy protection any more
than you do, but randomizing the number just breaks things, rather than is
some help to the consumer.  It'd be better to get the sw manufacturers to
stop using copy protection!

> Based upon Vista's problem with the changing number, I'd say a changing
> number is a feature.

Only if you don't want to run Vista. (and there's plenty of reasons for
that not related to that motherboard breaking it.)

--
Bob Comer


"mike"  wrote in message
news:hi13r2hcmvd2k0sdhp9ps94fvfhgm87cmf{at}4ax.com...
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 21:26:46 -0500, "Robert Comer"
>  wrote:
>
>>I can't think of how that would be helpful for security. (I had the same
>>thought actually, but couldn't come with a valid reason)
>
> First one that comes to mind: it would prevent tracking via the disk
> serial number.   Why put the serial number there in the first place if
> it is not being used?  If it is being used, why expose the same number
> each for each use?
>
> Based upon Vista's problem with the changing number, I'd say a changing
> number is a feature.
>
> /m

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5