From: "Rich Gauszka" 


"Robert G Lewis"  wrote in message
news:44a46029{at}w3.nls.net...
>
> "Adam" <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the
field.near the bridge"> wrote
> in message news:44a4520d$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> Adam > wrote:
>>> Rich Gauszka wrote:
>>>> The Microsoft people that run that forum also love to use
their editing
>>>> power to alter the meaning of topic headings.  I've had the word
>>>> 'trojan'
>>>> magically disappear from some of my posts. They also appear to be in
>>>> denial.
>>>> Dang those evil complainers on the forum who skew their happiness.
>>>>
>>>>
http://forums.microsoft.com/Genuine/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=510552&SiteID=25
>>>> Where are these numbers and estimations based off of? The
forum is very
>>>> skewed result of only users having Validation issues.
>>>>
>>> Good Lord who is "Dan at IT associates"?
>>> Is contracted to spin on MS's behalf? Kinda "Astro-dan"?
>>>
>>> Adam
>> Oh & BTW he's obviously full of shit coz looky here...
>>
>> He says (in the above thread):
>>
>> "Now approach this with an open mind....."
>>
>> mmmmmkkkay...such as one which swallows the party line & tires to munch
>> it's way up to the fishing rod? I think that's a "gullible
mind" & not
>> an "open" one.
>>
>> & then:
>>
>> "MS begins a program that deploys checking software onto each
>> installation of Windows.  The software is designed to check whether the
>> installed copy of XP is genuine.  If it's not, that installation of XP
>> is denied manually applied updates at Windows Update, and some
>> nice-to-have downloads at microsoft.com.  The installation of XP still
>> gets security related critical updates pushed to it if Automatic Updates
>> is set.  Nothing about the actual function of the computer or the
>> Operating System is affected.
>>
>> MS's reasoning is, Let's reward people for using a genuine copy of our
>> product.  The flipside of that is, let's withhold nice-to-have stuff if
>> the copy is not genuine."
>>
>> odd to compare that with:
>>
>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=84
>>
>> "He told me that "in the fall, having the latest WGA will become
>> mandatory and if its not installed, Windows will give a 30 day warning
>> and when the 30 days is up and WGA isn't installed, Windows will stop
>> working, so you might as well install WGA now." "
>>
>> Hummm....
>>
>> Adam
>
> Not to defend "Dan' but the latter has been talked about  and denied.
> 'Dan' is definitely full of shit though. I can barely read his posts.
>
> However I think they have had a decent number of Genuine Windows that fail
> the test. Once I've bought and paid for the computer and its legal MS has
> not 9**&^*&% business harassing me to get Genuine because someone else
> leaked an OEM key etc. I'd also say that MS has definitely affected the
> function of PC's through a buggy WGA notification.
>
> They already have a way to validate through their activex controls, why
> not use that every time one goes to windows update ? less intrusive and
> should allow them to accomplish what they SAY they want to accomplish,
> though not what they have in mind for the future.
>

That really is the key - Microsoft's future plan. They seem upset over the
controversy but they can easily stop the speculation by stating what the
plan is. Instead they use phrases like  "we may in the future"

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