[H] New MS rule
This is lovely. The new MS rule on regenerating Auth numbers for people with CDs and lost numbers. You fax in a proof of purchase (must be a receipt) and pay then $15 and if you call the US number, they'll generate the number and call back in FOUR WEEKS! Here in Canada, it's FOUR to SIX weeks! So if you've lost your auth number, you're screwed. Does anyone see this as simply a drive to make people to upgrade to XP. T --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Anti-Virus]
Re: [H] New MS rule
Thane Sherrington wrote: This is lovely. The new MS rule on regenerating Auth numbers for people with CDs and lost numbers. You fax in a proof of purchase (must be a receipt) and pay then $15 and if you call the US number, they'll generate the number and call back in FOUR WEEKS! Here in Canada, it's FOUR to SIX weeks! So if you've lost your auth number, you're screwed. Does anyone see this as simply a drive to make people to upgrade to XP. Yes. Also, customers shouldn't lose those numbers. Why don't vendors simply put a sticker on or inside the case with the Auth numbers on them? Then include the CD.
Re: [H] New MS rule
- Original Message - From: "Thane Sherrington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 9:57 AM Subject: [H] New MS rule This is lovely. The new MS rule on regenerating Auth numbers for people with CDs and lost numbers. You fax in a proof of purchase (must be a receipt) and pay then $15 and if you call the US number, they'll generate the number and call back in FOUR WEEKS! Here in Canada, it's FOUR to SIX weeks! So if you've lost your auth number, you're screwed. Does anyone I instruct my customers to treat their COA sticker the same as they treat a $100.00 bill. If they lost it, they have to replace it at their expense. I do not tell them that I can read their Product Key from within Windows if it is operative and from a passive hook up if their Windows is not operative and I have to rely on my shop computer. I use these and many other tools of the trade when necessary but I try to train them to protect their data so jumping through hoops will not be necessary. Can't people read between the lines when they ask a computer manufacturer, a software manufacturer or Microsoft to do anything for them? Save time and wind up real good, mentally and then cuss your own self out. Save them the trouble. Chuck
Re: [H] New MS rule
At 10:58 AM 05/05/2005, Anthony Q. Martin wrote: US number, they'll generate the number and call back in FOUR WEEKS! Here in Canada, it's FOUR to SIX weeks! So if you've lost your auth number, you're screwed. Does anyone see this as simply a drive to make people to upgrade to XP. Yes. Also, customers shouldn't lose those numbers. Why don't vendors simply put a sticker on or inside the case with the Auth numbers on them? Then include the CD. That's all true, but the fact remains that people who have legally purchased the software are being penalized for being human. I have no problem with the proof of purchase or the $15, but the time frame is insane. If I fax in the PoP and call with a Visa number, I should have the number within the hour. T --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Anti-Virus]
Re: [H] New MS rule
Thane Sherrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That's all true, but the fact remains that people who have legally > purchased the software are being penalized for being human. I have no > problem with the proof of purchase or the $15, Penalty being the proof and the $15. >but the time frame is > insane. If I fax in the PoP and call with a Visa number, I should have the > number within the hour. Agreed. If they need the number, it's most likely they need to reinstall. 4 to 6 weeks will make most upgrade, as you suggested. Seems obvious. regards, Al Smile... it increases your face value.
Re: [H] New MS rule
> Does anyone > see this as simply a drive to make people to upgrade to XP. > And a drive for an easy $15 ;-)
Re: [H] New MS rule
Seriously (and here's where I will get catcalls) this is why I wish MS -did- have a way to force more people to literally upgrade; If you're still running Win98, etc. I'd prefer they almost say "sorry, we don't support that product at all anymore" You can say "oh, that's unfair" but call Ford and see if you can get parts for a Pinto. Or Chevy if you can get parts for a 68 whatever; you have to go aftermarket. At a certain point, it's true of all products, software is not the exception to the rule. I've had to replace books because they were tattered (See: Hitchhiker's Guide, Discworld, Dune and numerous others). Call Apple up and see about getting support for Mac System 7 or your Apple Lisa, they'll tell you to jump in a lake. CW -Original message- From: "G.Waleed Kavalec" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 12:00:23 -0500 To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] New MS rule > > Does anyone > > see this as simply a drive to make people to upgrade to XP. > > > > And a drive for an easy $15 ;-) >
Re: [H] New MS rule
I wasn't goint to bite but what the heck - If I want to replace a part on my Pinto I don't have to go to Ford. I'd have no problem with MS telling folks to jump in the lake if they allowed someone else to got jump in and save 'em. On 5/5/05, CW <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Seriously (and here's where I will get catcalls) this is why I wish MS -did- > have a way to force more people to literally upgrade; If you're still running > Win98, etc. I'd prefer they almost say "sorry, we don't support that product > at all anymore" > > You can say "oh, that's unfair" but call Ford and see if you can get parts > for a Pinto. Or Chevy if you can get parts for a 68 whatever; you have to go > aftermarket. > > At a certain point, it's true of all products, software is not the exception > to the rule. I've had to replace books because they were tattered (See: > Hitchhiker's Guide, Discworld, Dune and numerous others). > > Call Apple up and see about getting support for Mac System 7 or your Apple > Lisa, they'll tell you to jump in a lake. > > CW > > > -Original message- > From: "G.Waleed Kavalec" [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 12:00:23 -0500 > To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com > Subject: Re: [H] New MS rule > > > > Does anyone > > > see this as simply a drive to make people to upgrade to XP. > > > > > > > And a drive for an easy $15 ;-) > > > > -- -jmg Chaos often breeds life, when order breeds habit. Henry Brooks Adams [1838-1918]
Re: [H] New MS rule
At 02:25 PM 05/05/2005, CW wrote: Seriously (and here's where I will get catcalls) this is why I wish MS -did- have a way to force more people to literally upgrade; If you're still running Win98, etc. I'd prefer they almost say "sorry, we don't support that product at all anymore" They do for Win95. You can say "oh, that's unfair" but call Ford and see if you can get parts for a Pinto. Or Chevy if you can get parts for a 68 whatever; you have to go aftermarket. But MS doesn't allow aftermarket, so that's not a fair comparison. If all I do is Word Processing and Email, why should I have to upgrade my Pentium 233 to XP (which would require a hardware upgrade as well?) Keeping the auth number generator software costs MS nothing, and the support time is easily covered under by the $15. If MS doesn't want to support their products, they should release them into the public domain. At a certain point, it's true of all products, software is not the exception to the rule. I've had to replace books because they were tattered (See: Hitchhiker's Guide, Discworld, Dune and numerous others). I don't think your analogy holds - this is more like losing the front cover of a book, and being forced to buy a new copy if you want to read it again. They still have the CD. T --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Anti-Virus]
Re: [H] New MS rule
Thane Sherrington wrote: But MS doesn't allow aftermarket, so that's not a fair comparison. If all I do is Word Processing and Email, why should I have to upgrade my Pentium 233 to XP (which would require a hardware upgrade as well?) Keeping the auth number generator software costs MS nothing, and the support time is easily covered under by the $15. How can you be sure the support time is really covered by $15? These problems go away of the customer keeps up with their own info...
Re: [H] New MS rule
At 02:38 PM 05/05/2005, Anthony Q. Martin wrote: How can you be sure the support time is really covered by $15? These problems go away of the customer keeps up with their own info... Hmmm... underpaid Indian worker gives fax number to caller - 3 minutes looks at fax - 1 minute Loads keygen program - 30 seconds presses "Generate Key" - 2 seconds Writes down key number in email or letter to be faxed - 1 minute Sends fax/email - 30 seconds So $15 Cdn for 6 minutes and 2 seconds of work. No bad, even if you were paying a decent salary - but since this guy is making $0.25 Cdn per hour, the income is amazing. T --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Anti-Virus]
Re: [H] New MS rule
On 5/5/05, Thane Sherrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 02:38 PM 05/05/2005, Anthony Q. Martin wrote: > > >How can you be sure the support time is really covered by $15? These > >problems go away of the customer keeps up with their own info... > > Hmmm... > underpaid Indian worker gives fax number to caller - 3 minutes > looks at fax - 1 minute > Loads keygen program - 30 seconds > presses "Generate Key" - 2 seconds > Writes down key number in email or letter to be faxed - 1 minute > Sends fax/email - 30 seconds > Knowing that job could have belonged to an American - priceless.
Re: [H] New MS rule
Thane Sherrington wrote: At 02:38 PM 05/05/2005, Anthony Q. Martin wrote: How can you be sure the support time is really covered by $15? These problems go away of the customer keeps up with their own info... Hmmm... underpaid Indian worker gives fax number to caller - 3 minutes looks at fax - 1 minute Loads keygen program - 30 seconds presses "Generate Key" - 2 seconds Writes down key number in email or letter to be faxed - 1 minute Sends fax/email - 30 seconds So $15 Cdn for 6 minutes and 2 seconds of work. No bad, even if you were paying a decent salary - but since this guy is making $0.25 Cdn per hour, the income is amazing. You really think those are all the costs involved? The generated income must pay for *all* costs involved...
Re: [H] New MS rule
At 02:54 PM 05/05/2005, G.Waleed Kavalec wrote: > Hmmm... > underpaid Indian worker gives fax number to caller - 3 minutes > looks at fax - 1 minute > Loads keygen program - 30 seconds > presses "Generate Key" - 2 seconds > Writes down key number in email or letter to be faxed - 1 minute > Sends fax/email - 30 seconds > Knowing that job could have belonged to an American - priceless. ROFTL! That's good! T --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Anti-Virus]
Re: [H] New MS rule
At 02:54 PM 05/05/2005, Anthony Q. Martin wrote: You really think those are all the costs involved? The generated income must pay for *all* costs involved... Oh Christ, Anthony, you win. MS is losing billions a year on this stuff, I'm sure. T --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Anti-Virus]
Re: [H] New MS rule
Thane Sherrington wrote: At 02:54 PM 05/05/2005, Anthony Q. Martin wrote: You really think those are all the costs involved? The generated income must pay for *all* costs involved... Oh Christ, Anthony, you win. MS is losing billions a year on this stuff, I'm sure. It it were a profit winner, they'd be better support. It's a necessary evil that they'd rather have go away...the fact is, people don't expect to pay a lot for a number, so MS throws in large lag times to encourage upgrading. it's the nature of the beast...
Re: [H] New MS rule
OK, I guess I've just missed the point. Can anyone show me a single instance where MS has prosecuted a home user for borrowing a key? -Original message- From: Thane Sherrington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 11:53:51 -0500 To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] New MS rule > At 02:25 PM 05/05/2005, CW wrote: > >Seriously (and here's where I will get catcalls) this is why I wish MS > >-did- have a way to force more people to literally upgrade; If you're > >still running Win98, etc. I'd prefer they almost say "sorry, we don't > >support that product at all anymore" > > They do for Win95. > > >You can say "oh, that's unfair" but call Ford and see if you can get parts > >for a Pinto. Or Chevy if you can get parts for a 68 whatever; you have to > >go aftermarket. > > But MS doesn't allow aftermarket, so that's not a fair comparison. If all > I do is Word Processing and Email, why should I have to upgrade my Pentium > 233 to XP (which would require a hardware upgrade as well?) Keeping the > auth number generator software costs MS nothing, and the support time is > easily covered under by the $15. > > If MS doesn't want to support their products, they should release them into > the public domain. > > >At a certain point, it's true of all products, software is not the > >exception to the rule. I've had to replace books because they were > >tattered (See: Hitchhiker's Guide, Discworld, Dune and numerous others). > > I don't think your analogy holds - this is more like losing the front cover > of a book, and being forced to buy a new copy if you want to read it > again. They still have the CD. > > T > > --- > [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Anti-Virus] >
Re: [H] New MS rule
- Original Message - From: "CW" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "The Hardware List" Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 4:58 PM Subject: Re: [H] New MS rule OK, I guess I've just missed the point. Can anyone show me a single instance where MS has prosecuted a home user for borrowing a key? Your hurdle is not getting Windows XP to install. You can use any Product Key for the same version (OEM, Full or Upgrade) and Windows XP will install. It is the required authentication process that you have to worry about. The first time your new computer (or Upgrade Installation) was authenticated a detailed description of the computer was matched to the Product Key and sent to Microsoft. Microsoft will detect and deny authentication on any future occasion if authentication is attempted after having used a different Product Key to install Windows. Authentication is the key. Example: Before authentication became a requirement people like Hewlett Packard could easily be suspected of piracy. If any of you has a Hewlett Packard computer with Windows 98 SE on it, check and see if VTXBY-99K94-9C6CW-Q2FR4-8Q4VQ is the Product Key used to install Windows 98 SE version 4.10.. Out of the well over a hundred Hewlett Packard computers I installed Windows 98 SE on all came with Windows installed using this same Product Key which I bet you will find if you examine the Product Key for this version of Windows which can be found in the registry. My point here is it is easy to come up with most any Product Key and install Windows. Windows 98 did not need authentication. Windows XP does and there lies your obstacle if you do not always use the same Product Key that the computer manufacturer used. Right now you may not believe me. You will believe me if several others post "Me to's" in response to my question," Does your Windows 98 SE HP have the same Product Key as I listed in my 2nd paragraph above." Chuck
RE: [H] New MS rule
(note: this is for Windows98 only, and applies for initially legally valid copies) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of CW Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 3:59 PM To: The Hardware List Subject: Re: [H] New MS rule OK, I guess I've just missed the point. Can anyone show me a single instance where MS has prosecuted a home user for borrowing a key? -Original message- From: Thane Sherrington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 11:53:51 -0500 To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] New MS rule > At 02:25 PM 05/05/2005, CW wrote: > >Seriously (and here's where I will get catcalls) this is why I wish MS > >-did- have a way to force more people to literally upgrade; If you're > >still running Win98, etc. I'd prefer they almost say "sorry, we don't > >support that product at all anymore" > > They do for Win95. > > >You can say "oh, that's unfair" but call Ford and see if you can get parts > >for a Pinto. Or Chevy if you can get parts for a 68 whatever; you have to > >go aftermarket. > > But MS doesn't allow aftermarket, so that's not a fair comparison. If all > I do is Word Processing and Email, why should I have to upgrade my Pentium > 233 to XP (which would require a hardware upgrade as well?) Keeping the > auth number generator software costs MS nothing, and the support time is > easily covered under by the $15. > > If MS doesn't want to support their products, they should release them into > the public domain. > > >At a certain point, it's true of all products, software is not the > >exception to the rule. I've had to replace books because they were > >tattered (See: Hitchhiker's Guide, Discworld, Dune and numerous others). > > I don't think your analogy holds - this is more like losing the front cover > of a book, and being forced to buy a new copy if you want to read it > again. They still have the CD. > > T > > --- > [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Anti-Virus] >
RE: [H] New MS rule
OK, but at question here, if I understand correctly, is the generation of keys for older OS (98 specifically) your example that a borrowed key works seems to highlight my position of: if you're really out a 98SE key, and you waste the time calling them instead of finding any of the millions of people who have a key you can "use" then they ought to charge you $ for wasting their time ;) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 7:37 PM To: The Hardware List Subject: Re: [H] New MS rule - Original Message - From: "CW" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "The Hardware List" Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 4:58 PM Subject: Re: [H] New MS rule > OK, I guess I've just missed the point. > > Can anyone show me a single instance where MS has prosecuted a home user > for borrowing a key? Your hurdle is not getting Windows XP to install. You can use any Product Key for the same version (OEM, Full or Upgrade) and Windows XP will install. It is the required authentication process that you have to worry about. The first time your new computer (or Upgrade Installation) was authenticated a detailed description of the computer was matched to the Product Key and sent to Microsoft. Microsoft will detect and deny authentication on any future occasion if authentication is attempted after having used a different Product Key to install Windows. Authentication is the key. Example: Before authentication became a requirement people like Hewlett Packard could easily be suspected of piracy. If any of you has a Hewlett Packard computer with Windows 98 SE on it, check and see if VTXBY-99K94-9C6CW-Q2FR4-8Q4VQ is the Product Key used to install Windows 98 SE version 4.10.. Out of the well over a hundred Hewlett Packard computers I installed Windows 98 SE on all came with Windows installed using this same Product Key which I bet you will find if you examine the Product Key for this version of Windows which can be found in the registry. My point here is it is easy to come up with most any Product Key and install Windows. Windows 98 did not need authentication. Windows XP does and there lies your obstacle if you do not always use the same Product Key that the computer manufacturer used. Right now you may not believe me. You will believe me if several others post "Me to's" in response to my question," Does your Windows 98 SE HP have the same Product Key as I listed in my 2nd paragraph above." Chuck
RE: [H] New MS rule
It'll either make people upgrade or make people use a fake/pirated/stolen number. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thane Sherrington Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 9:57 AM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: [H] New MS rule This is lovely. The new MS rule on regenerating Auth numbers for people with CDs and lost numbers. You fax in a proof of purchase (must be a receipt) and pay then $15 and if you call the US number, they'll generate the number and call back in FOUR WEEKS! Here in Canada, it's FOUR to SIX weeks! So if you've lost your auth number, you're screwed. Does anyone see this as simply a drive to make people to upgrade to XP.
Re: [H] New MS rule/keys suck
FORC5 wrote: customers should NOT need numbers, KEYS SUCK. and always have IMO >:-} I agree.
Re: [H] New MS rule/keys suck
customers should NOT need numbers, KEYS SUCK. and always have IMO >:-} At 06:58 AM 5/5/2005, Anthony Q. Martin Poked the stick with: Thane Sherrington wrote: This is lovely. The new MS rule on regenerating Auth numbers for people with CDs and lost numbers. You fax in a proof of purchase (must be a receipt) and pay then $15 and if you call the US number, they'll generate the number and call back in FOUR WEEKS! Here in Canada, it's FOUR to SIX weeks! So if you've lost your auth number, you're screwed. Does anyone see this as simply a drive to make people to upgrade to XP. Yes. Also, customers shouldn't lose those numbers. Why don't vendors simply put a sticker on or inside the case with the Auth numbers on them? Then include the CD. -- Tallyho ! ]:8) -- October; When trees change from hirsuties to bald pates.
Re: [H] New MS rule/keys suck
I'm comming into this conversation way late... So are they charging for the KEY or the authentication number?On 5/5/05, Anthony Q. Martin < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: FORC5 wrote: customers should NOT need numbers, KEYS SUCK. and always have IMO >:-} I agree. -- -Franciscohttp://pcthis.blogspot.com |PC news with out the jargon!http://sqlthis.blogspot.com | Tsql and More...
Re: [H] New MS rule/keys suck
- Original Message - From: "FORC5" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "The Hardware List" Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 2:43 PM Subject: Re: [H] New MS rule/keys suck Yes. Also, customers shouldn't lose those numbers. Why don't vendors simply put a sticker on or inside the case with > the Auth numbers on them? Then include the CD. The Windows XP Home OEM kits I use as a computer manufacturer include a laminated COA sticker that I am required to affix to the computer. The text is small, but very difficult to accidently erase. If you pull your computer from the bottom of a lake and the text is smeared, well, you need a new computer anyway. Chuck
