From: mike 

On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 08:03:26 -0500, "Robert Comer"
 wrote:

>> 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.

But it is *a* way, one which could be used if the others are obfuscated.


>
>>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!

Everyone should have a goal.  :)


>
>> 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.)

Again, it's a feature.  ;)

 /m

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