Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down and any

attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is not a valid

license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.

 

My recommendation is that you DO NOT do anything that would cause Vista

to attempt to validate, such as downloading software from MS that

requires validation.

 

WGA critics, let's here what you have to say.

--

Tom Porterfield

Tom Porterfield wrote:

> Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down and any

> attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is not a valid

> license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.

>

> My recommendation is that you DO NOT do anything that would cause Vista

> to attempt to validate, such as downloading software from MS that

> requires validation.

>

> WGA critics, let's here what you have to say.

 

 

Nothing much, it wasn't "If" but "When".

 

You might add turn off auto updating completely, thereby leaving

yourself vulnerable to any zero day exploits, but of course (Hopefully)

preventing Microsoft's own zero day exploit.

 

Do NOT turn your machine off at all if you don't have to.

 

MS CANNOT MANAGE ONE SERVER!

 

Why in hell would anyone entrust their business to such a ramshackle

organization that cannot fix one server "Until Monday".

 

 

They have no backups? No system for on the fly replacement? No redundancy?

 

Something stinks here, badly.

Tom Porterfield wrote:

> Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down and any

> attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is not a valid

> license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.

>

> My recommendation is that you DO NOT do anything that would cause Vista

> to attempt to validate, such as downloading software from MS that

> requires validation.

>

> WGA critics, let's here what you have to say.

My guess is that your invitation is a bit late. )

 

--

norm

On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:54:40 -0400, Tom Porterfield

<tpporter@mvps.org> wrote:

>Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down and any

>attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is not a valid

>license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.

>

>My recommendation is that you DO NOT do anything that would cause Vista

>to attempt to validate, such as downloading software from MS that

>requires validation.

>

>WGA critics, let's here what you have to say.

 

I hate to be one that says I told you so. Again, Microsoft proves to

the world that it is totally incompetent. For a company as large as

Microsoft considering WHAT their business is to have servers go down

and impact probably tens of millions if not more customers world wide

due to their lax security and utter stupidity and remain that way for

more than a few minutes is laughable in the extreme. What are they

saying now, check back on Tuesday?

 

I have no idea where Billy G is in the world at the moment, rest

assured alarm bells are going off in Redmond and he's sweating bullets

and probably screaming his lungs off at somebody for this latest

disaster. This is one of if not the biggest blunders in Microsoft's

checkered history and it will cost them big time in lost creditability

and respect and surely will increase anger towards them AND IT SHOULD!

 

It too should be the death knell for all kinds of half-ass activation

schemes that Microsoft and everybody else knows doesn't stop hackers

or pirates in the first place, but it won't be. As usual, it is Joe

six pack that suffers because of Microsoft arrogance and stupidity.

 

This space reserved for idiots like Frank to squeal it isn't

Microsoft's fault.

 

Reserved for Frank to make an ass of himself ====>

On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:04:24 -0500, Charlie Tame <charlie@tames.net>

wrote:

>Tom Porterfield wrote:

>> Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down and any

>> attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is not a valid

>> license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.

>>

>> My recommendation is that you DO NOT do anything that would cause Vista

>> to attempt to validate, such as downloading software from MS that

>> requires validation.

>>

>> WGA critics, let's here what you have to say.

>

>

>Nothing much, it wasn't "If" but "When".

>

>You might add turn off auto updating completely, thereby leaving

>yourself vulnerable to any zero day exploits, but of course (Hopefully)

>preventing Microsoft's own zero day exploit.

>

>Do NOT turn your machine off at all if you don't have to.

>

>MS CANNOT MANAGE ONE SERVER!

>

>Why in hell would anyone entrust their business to such a ramshackle

>organization that cannot fix one server "Until Monday".

>

>

>They have no backups? No system for on the fly replacement? No redundancy?

>

>Something stinks here, badly.

 

If you already done it or need to do it.

 

See my "WGA temporary fix" post.

 

People need to look online for the fix. I found it in 3 seconds

searching google.

 

Greg Rozelle

 

 

========Signature Line=========

http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?certegy

You keep posting this but it will NOT work in this instance.

 

--

 

 

Regards,

 

Richard Urban

Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User

(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

 

 

"Greg Rozelle" <invaild@invaild.com> wrote in message

news:Lo_zi.4457$Oo.2955@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net...

> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:04:24 -0500, Charlie Tame <charlie@tames.net>

> wrote:

>

>>Tom Porterfield wrote:

>>> Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down and any

>>> attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is not a valid

>>> license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.

>>>

>>> My recommendation is that you DO NOT do anything that would cause Vista

>>> to attempt to validate, such as downloading software from MS that

>>> requires validation.

>>>

>>> WGA critics, let's here what you have to say.

>>

>>

>>Nothing much, it wasn't "If" but "When".

>>

>>You might add turn off auto updating completely, thereby leaving

>>yourself vulnerable to any zero day exploits, but of course (Hopefully)

>>preventing Microsoft's own zero day exploit.

>>

>>Do NOT turn your machine off at all if you don't have to.

>>

>>MS CANNOT MANAGE ONE SERVER!

>>

>>Why in hell would anyone entrust their business to such a ramshackle

>>organization that cannot fix one server "Until Monday".

>>

>>

>>They have no backups? No system for on the fly replacement? No redundancy?

>>

>>Something stinks here, badly.

>

> If you already done it or need to do it.

>

> See my "WGA temporary fix" post.

>

> People need to look online for the fix. I found it in 3 seconds

> searching google.

>

> Greg Rozelle

>

>

> ========Signature Line=========

> http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?certegy

Greg Rozelle wrote:

> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:04:24 -0500, Charlie Tame <charlie@tames.net>

> wrote:

>

>> Tom Porterfield wrote:

>>> Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down and any

>>> attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is not a valid

>>> license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.

>>>

>>> My recommendation is that you DO NOT do anything that would cause Vista

>>> to attempt to validate, such as downloading software from MS that

>>> requires validation.

>>>

>>> WGA critics, let's here what you have to say.

>>

>> Nothing much, it wasn't "If" but "When".

>>

>> You might add turn off auto updating completely, thereby leaving

>> yourself vulnerable to any zero day exploits, but of course (Hopefully)

>> preventing Microsoft's own zero day exploit.

>>

>> Do NOT turn your machine off at all if you don't have to.

>>

>> MS CANNOT MANAGE ONE SERVER!

>>

>> Why in hell would anyone entrust their business to such a ramshackle

>> organization that cannot fix one server "Until Monday".

>>

>>

>> They have no backups? No system for on the fly replacement? No redundancy?

>>

>> Something stinks here, badly.

>

> If you already done it or need to do it.

>

> See my "WGA temporary fix" post.

>

> People need to look online for the fix. I found it in 3 seconds

> searching google.

>

> Greg Rozelle

>

>

> ========Signature Line=========

> http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?certegy

 

 

So basically what you are saying is it's fine for Microsoft to behave in

an incompetent manner as long as Google doesn't :)

 

Why should any MS user need a temporary fix for something MS broke for

millions of people when MS actually MAKE and SELL the software

responsible as being reliable for business use?

"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message

news:8lr0d3dmm69dpuv2fsuq2tm9akql32bnos@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:54:40 -0400, Tom Porterfield

> <tpporter@mvps.org> wrote:

>

>>Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down and any

>>attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is not a valid

>>license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.

>>

>>My recommendation is that you DO NOT do anything that would cause Vista

>>to attempt to validate, such as downloading software from MS that

>>requires validation.

>>

>>WGA critics, let's here what you have to say.

>

> I hate to be one that says I told you so. Again, Microsoft proves to

> the world that it is totally incompetent. For a company as large as

> Microsoft considering WHAT their business is to have servers go down

> and impact probably tens of millions if not more customers world wide

> due to their lax security and utter stupidity and remain that way for

> more than a few minutes is laughable in the extreme. What are they

> saying now, check back on Tuesday?

>

> I have no idea where Billy G is in the world at the moment, rest

> assured alarm bells are going off in Redmond and he's sweating bullets

> and probably screaming his lungs off at somebody for this latest

> disaster. This is one of if not the biggest blunders in Microsoft's

> checkered history and it will cost them big time in lost creditability

> and respect and surely will increase anger towards them AND IT SHOULD!

>

> It too should be the death knell for all kinds of half-ass activation

> schemes that Microsoft and everybody else knows doesn't stop hackers

> or pirates in the first place, but it won't be. As usual, it is Joe

> six pack that suffers because of Microsoft arrogance and stupidity.

>

> This space reserved for idiots like Frank to squeal it isn't

> Microsoft's fault.

>

> Reserved for Frank to make an ass of himself ====>

>

>

>

 

 

It is a bit of an alarm bell. The activation strategy needs to be

reconsidered, of course, but only to some degree.

 

I *think* the problem is that after detecting a non-valid install [even

errorneously] reduced functionality kicks in.

 

They shouldn't be so fast. A good substantial time period needs to exist ..

perhaps a month .. *but at least a week* .. before anything at all save a

message box occurs. This would preclude events such as has occured this

weekend. I'm very surprised validation works so quickly against perceived

violators. It works much too fast [considering all the room for error][and

as this weekend has shown].

 

Saucy

Saucy wrote:

> "Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message

> news:8lr0d3dmm69dpuv2fsuq2tm9akql32bnos@4ax.com...

>> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:54:40 -0400, Tom Porterfield

>> <tpporter@mvps.org> wrote:

>>

>>> Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down and any

>>> attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is not a valid

>>> license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.

>>>

>>> My recommendation is that you DO NOT do anything that would cause Vista

>>> to attempt to validate, such as downloading software from MS that

>>> requires validation.

>>>

>>> WGA critics, let's here what you have to say.

>>

>> I hate to be one that says I told you so. Again, Microsoft proves to

>> the world that it is totally incompetent. For a company as large as

>> Microsoft considering WHAT their business is to have servers go down

>> and impact probably tens of millions if not more customers world wide

>> due to their lax security and utter stupidity and remain that way for

>> more than a few minutes is laughable in the extreme. What are they

>> saying now, check back on Tuesday?

>>

>> I have no idea where Billy G is in the world at the moment, rest

>> assured alarm bells are going off in Redmond and he's sweating bullets

>> and probably screaming his lungs off at somebody for this latest

>> disaster. This is one of if not the biggest blunders in Microsoft's

>> checkered history and it will cost them big time in lost creditability

>> and respect and surely will increase anger towards them AND IT SHOULD!

>>

>> It too should be the death knell for all kinds of half-ass activation

>> schemes that Microsoft and everybody else knows doesn't stop hackers

>> or pirates in the first place, but it won't be. As usual, it is Joe

>> six pack that suffers because of Microsoft arrogance and stupidity.

>>

>> This space reserved for idiots like Frank to squeal it isn't

>> Microsoft's fault.

>>

>> Reserved for Frank to make an ass of himself ====>

>>

>>

>>

>

>

> It is a bit of an alarm bell. The activation strategy needs to be

> reconsidered, of course, but only to some degree.

>

> I *think* the problem is that after detecting a non-valid install [even

> errorneously] reduced functionality kicks in.

>

> They shouldn't be so fast. A good substantial time period needs to exist

> .. perhaps a month .. *but at least a week* .. before anything at all

> save a message box occurs. This would preclude events such as has

> occured this weekend. I'm very surprised validation works so quickly

> against perceived violators. It works much too fast [considering all the

> room for error][and as this weekend has shown].

>

> Saucy

 

 

But here you are talking with people who

 

1. Know of the existence of these groups

2. Are computer literate enough to think of checking on Google etc

3. Are not likely to be thrown into a panic.

 

Windows is used by the less well educated, the disabled and the elderly

and by businesses that depend on things working. This kind of thing has

system admins on the run for hours before it is known what caused it,

yesterday out system at work died because someone in Alabama dug up a

fiber optic cable. Our IT people not only had to field dozens of calls

from facilities that were prevented from working they had to spend hours

fixing problems that users had caused trying to fix things themselves in

reports that were half way done before the trouble hit. We are a very

small corporation but nonetheless you are talking hundreds of man hours,

maybe more.

 

Multiply this by the thousands in the country as a whole and you see the

true price of this folly, but that's alright, Microsoft won't have to

pay it, right?

 

The problem didn't start in a month, or a week, it started right as the

server went down.

"Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message

news:OBMg7X05HHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> Greg Rozelle wrote:

>> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:04:24 -0500, Charlie Tame <charlie@tames.net>

>> wrote:

>>

>>> Tom Porterfield wrote:

>>>> Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down and any

>>>> attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is not a

>>>> valid license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.

>>>>

>>>> My recommendation is that you DO NOT do anything that would cause Vista

>>>> to attempt to validate, such as downloading software from MS that

>>>> requires validation.

>>>>

>>>> WGA critics, let's here what you have to say.

>>>

>>> Nothing much, it wasn't "If" but "When".

>>>

>>> You might add turn off auto updating completely, thereby leaving

>>> yourself vulnerable to any zero day exploits, but of course (Hopefully)

>>> preventing Microsoft's own zero day exploit.

>>>

>>> Do NOT turn your machine off at all if you don't have to.

>>>

>>> MS CANNOT MANAGE ONE SERVER!

>>>

>>> Why in hell would anyone entrust their business to such a ramshackle

>>> organization that cannot fix one server "Until Monday".

>>>

>>>

>>> They have no backups? No system for on the fly replacement? No

>>> redundancy?

>>>

>>> Something stinks here, badly.

>>

>> If you already done it or need to do it.

>>

>> See my "WGA temporary fix" post. People need to look online for the

>> fix. I found it in 3 seconds

>> searching google.

>>

>> Greg Rozelle

>>

>>

>> ========Signature Line=========

>> http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?certegy

>

>

> So basically what you are saying is it's fine for Microsoft to behave in

> an incompetent manner as long as Google doesn't :)

>

> Why should any MS user need a temporary fix for something MS broke for

> millions of people when MS actually MAKE and SELL the software responsible

> as being reliable for business use?

 

 

 

Agreed to some extent. The validation scheme should preclude the odd server

collapse. There's should be a week's grace before anything more than a

messagebox appears.

 

Saucy

"Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message

news:Opsusf05HHA.4584@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> Saucy wrote:

>> "Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message

>> news:8lr0d3dmm69dpuv2fsuq2tm9akql32bnos@4ax.com...

>>> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:54:40 -0400, Tom Porterfield

>>> <tpporter@mvps.org> wrote:

>>>

>>>> Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down and any

>>>> attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is not a

>>>> valid

>>>> license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.

>>>>

>>>> My recommendation is that you DO NOT do anything that would cause Vista

>>>> to attempt to validate, such as downloading software from MS that

>>>> requires validation.

>>>>

>>>> WGA critics, let's here what you have to say.

>>>

>>> I hate to be one that says I told you so. Again, Microsoft proves to

>>> the world that it is totally incompetent. For a company as large as

>>> Microsoft considering WHAT their business is to have servers go down

>>> and impact probably tens of millions if not more customers world wide

>>> due to their lax security and utter stupidity and remain that way for

>>> more than a few minutes is laughable in the extreme. What are they

>>> saying now, check back on Tuesday?

>>>

>>> I have no idea where Billy G is in the world at the moment, rest

>>> assured alarm bells are going off in Redmond and he's sweating bullets

>>> and probably screaming his lungs off at somebody for this latest

>>> disaster. This is one of if not the biggest blunders in Microsoft's

>>> checkered history and it will cost them big time in lost creditability

>>> and respect and surely will increase anger towards them AND IT SHOULD!

>>>

>>> It too should be the death knell for all kinds of half-ass activation

>>> schemes that Microsoft and everybody else knows doesn't stop hackers

>>> or pirates in the first place, but it won't be. As usual, it is Joe

>>> six pack that suffers because of Microsoft arrogance and stupidity.

>>>

>>> This space reserved for idiots like Frank to squeal it isn't

>>> Microsoft's fault.

>>>

>>> Reserved for Frank to make an ass of himself ====>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>

>>

>> It is a bit of an alarm bell. The activation strategy needs to be

>> reconsidered, of course, but only to some degree.

>>

>> I *think* the problem is that after detecting a non-valid install [even

>> errorneously] reduced functionality kicks in.

>>

>> They shouldn't be so fast. A good substantial time period needs to exist

>> .. perhaps a month .. *but at least a week* .. before anything at all

>> save a message box occurs. This would preclude events such as has occured

>> this weekend. I'm very surprised validation works so quickly against

>> perceived violators. It works much too fast [considering all the room for

>> error][and as this weekend has shown].

>>

>> Saucy

>

>

> But here you are talking with people who

>

> 1. Know of the existence of these groups

> 2. Are computer literate enough to think of checking on Google etc

> 3. Are not likely to be thrown into a panic.

>

> Windows is used by the less well educated, the disabled and the elderly

> and by businesses that depend on things working. This kind of thing has

> system admins on the run for hours before it is known what caused it,

> yesterday out system at work died because someone in Alabama dug up a

> fiber optic cable. Our IT people not only had to field dozens of calls

> from facilities that were prevented from working they had to spend hours

> fixing problems that users had caused trying to fix things themselves in

> reports that were half way done before the trouble hit. We are a very

> small corporation but nonetheless you are talking hundreds of man hours,

> maybe more.

>

> Multiply this by the thousands in the country as a whole and you see the

> true price of this folly, but that's alright, Microsoft won't have to pay

> it, right?

>

> The problem didn't start in a month, or a week, it started right as the

> server went down.

 

 

 

No, but what is occuring AFAICT is that when Windows is "validated" it

flunks because the server went down. Perhaps a system that simply says

"Server unavailable" plus a week's grace period before anything happens.

Instead, suddenly, reduced functionality kicks in.

 

If there is a grace period of a good week and a message saying to check with

Microsoft later, then there'd be less of a problem, wouldn't there?

 

I was sort of wary over the idea of reducing functionality of a person's

computer .. especially doing so at knne-jerk speed .. and I think my

wariness has just been proven correct. There should be a grace period

always.

 

Saucy

On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 14:30:47 -0400, "Saucy" <wow@now.brown.cow> wrote:

>"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message

>news:8lr0d3dmm69dpuv2fsuq2tm9akql32bnos@4ax.com...

>> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:54:40 -0400, Tom Porterfield

>> <tpporter@mvps.org> wrote:

>>

>>>Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down and any

>>>attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is not a valid

>>>license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.

>>>

>>>My recommendation is that you DO NOT do anything that would cause Vista

>>>to attempt to validate, such as downloading software from MS that

>>>requires validation.

>>>

>>>WGA critics, let's here what you have to say.

>>

>> I hate to be one that says I told you so. Again, Microsoft proves to

>> the world that it is totally incompetent. For a company as large as

>> Microsoft considering WHAT their business is to have servers go down

>> and impact probably tens of millions if not more customers world wide

>> due to their lax security and utter stupidity and remain that way for

>> more than a few minutes is laughable in the extreme. What are they

>> saying now, check back on Tuesday?

>>

>> I have no idea where Billy G is in the world at the moment, rest

>> assured alarm bells are going off in Redmond and he's sweating bullets

>> and probably screaming his lungs off at somebody for this latest

>> disaster. This is one of if not the biggest blunders in Microsoft's

>> checkered history and it will cost them big time in lost creditability

>> and respect and surely will increase anger towards them AND IT SHOULD!

>>

>> It too should be the death knell for all kinds of half-ass activation

>> schemes that Microsoft and everybody else knows doesn't stop hackers

>> or pirates in the first place, but it won't be. As usual, it is Joe

>> six pack that suffers because of Microsoft arrogance and stupidity.

>>

>> This space reserved for idiots like Frank to squeal it isn't

>> Microsoft's fault.

>>

>> Reserved for Frank to make an ass of himself ====>

>>

>>

>>

>

>

>It is a bit of an alarm bell. The activation strategy needs to be

>reconsidered, of course, but only to some degree.

 

The golden rule of programming is ASSUME NOTHING. Again we see that

Microsoft is so utterly incompetent that their remedy is to label

anyone who was unfortunate enough to have their computer "phone home"

in one of endless validation calls to big brother got promptly labeled

a thief. I'm writing my Congressman. Time to get some oversight of the

software industry and hit it where it hurts... the bottom line. Time

to fine rogue corporations that think they can do whatever the hell

they want and not be punished for it. If the standard $10,000 per

occurrence fine were in place you can bet damn sure no Microsoft

server would be down more than a few minutes or that the default

action would be to label everyone counterfeit. Also long past time to

outlaw ALL these half-ass activation schemes. They are lopped sided in

the extreme and give end users few if any rights. They violate long

established federal fair use laws already on the books for decades.

On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 14:45:50 -0400, "Saucy" <wow@now.brown.cow> wrote:

>"Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message

>news:OBMg7X05HHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>> Greg Rozelle wrote:

>>> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:04:24 -0500, Charlie Tame <charlie@tames.net>

>>> wrote:

>>>

>>>> Tom Porterfield wrote:

>>>>> Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down and any

>>>>> attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is not a

>>>>> valid license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.

>>>>>

>>>>> My recommendation is that you DO NOT do anything that would cause Vista

>>>>> to attempt to validate, such as downloading software from MS that

>>>>> requires validation.

>>>>>

>>>>> WGA critics, let's here what you have to say.

>>>>

>>>> Nothing much, it wasn't "If" but "When".

>>>>

>>>> You might add turn off auto updating completely, thereby leaving

>>>> yourself vulnerable to any zero day exploits, but of course (Hopefully)

>>>> preventing Microsoft's own zero day exploit.

>>>>

>>>> Do NOT turn your machine off at all if you don't have to.

>>>>

>>>> MS CANNOT MANAGE ONE SERVER!

>>>>

>>>> Why in hell would anyone entrust their business to such a ramshackle

>>>> organization that cannot fix one server "Until Monday".

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> They have no backups? No system for on the fly replacement? No

>>>> redundancy?

>>>>

>>>> Something stinks here, badly.

>>>

>>> If you already done it or need to do it.

>>>

>>> See my "WGA temporary fix" post. People need to look online for the

>>> fix. I found it in 3 seconds

>>> searching google.

>>>

>>> Greg Rozelle

>>>

>>>

>>> ========Signature Line=========

>>> http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?certegy

>>

>>

>> So basically what you are saying is it's fine for Microsoft to behave in

>> an incompetent manner as long as Google doesn't :)

>>

>> Why should any MS user need a temporary fix for something MS broke for

>> millions of people when MS actually MAKE and SELL the software responsible

>> as being reliable for business use?

>

>

>

>Agreed to some extent. The validation scheme should preclude the odd server

>collapse. There's should be a week's grace before anything more than a

>messagebox appears.

>

>Saucy

 

The point is there is NO legal basis for what Microsoft did. They have

their big fat corporate ass exposed to the air for anyone wanting to

take a stick to.

 

It isn't the user's fault a Microsoft server crashes. Worse, the

action taken, mark everyone counterfeit is so extreme in nature it

obviously violates the license agreement. It isn't a one way street.

Microsoft MUST legally live up to their end of the license as well.

Clearly this is a very juicy loophole you can drive a truck through.

Heads are going to roll in Redmond for whoever screwed this up.

 

This could be a tipping point. All depends how many millions of people

are affected and how fast Microsoft fixes the problem and apologies

profusely for such a major blunder. On a scale of 1 to 10, this is at

least a 8 or 9 and there is going to be hell to pay. On the scale of

things I view it almost as bad as Arthur Andersen once one of the big

5 CPA firms signing off on Enron's financial statements.* The big

boys, starting with Gates are going to have to eat crow on this one.

 

In case your curious what happened to them:

 

Arthur Andersen voluntarily surrendered its licenses to practice as

Certified Public Accountants in the U.S. pending the result of

prosecution by the Department of Justice over the firm's handling of

the auditing of Enron. The Andersen firm was convicted of obstruction

of justice for shredding documents related to its audit of Enron.

Since the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission does not allow

convicted felons to audit public companies, the firm agreed to

surrender its licenses. This effectively ended the company's

operations that once generated billions in yearly revenue.

On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:44:07 -0500, Charlie Tame <charlie@tames.net> wrote:

>But here you are talking with people who

>

>1. Know of the existence of these groups

>2. Are computer literate enough to think of checking on Google etc

>3. Are not likely to be thrown into a panic.

>

>Windows is used by the less well educated, the disabled and the elderly

>and by businesses that depend on things working. This kind of thing has

>system admins on the run for hours before it is known what caused it,

>yesterday out system at work died because someone in Alabama dug up a

>fiber optic cable. Our IT people not only had to field dozens of calls

>from facilities that were prevented from working they had to spend hours

>fixing problems that users had caused trying to fix things themselves in

>reports that were half way done before the trouble hit. We are a very

>small corporation but nonetheless you are talking hundreds of man hours,

>maybe more.

>

>Multiply this by the thousands in the country as a whole and you see the

>true price of this folly, but that's alright, Microsoft won't have to

>pay it, right?

>

>The problem didn't start in a month, or a week, it started right as the

>server went down.

 

I'm just curious as to how many errors and problems existed with pencils and

type writers compared to the PROGRESS we now enjoy, spending 75% of the time

keeping the OS from self destructing ?

At worst a pencil sharpener or 2nd pencil would keep work from coming to a 3

day stand still while someone finds another box of pencils.

--

more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

Adam he likes the boys and he is a salad tosser wrote:

 

> The point is there is NO legal basis for what Microsoft did. They have

> their big fat corporate ass exposed to the air for anyone wanting to

> take a stick to.

>

 

.

On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 14:54:12 -0400, Saucy wrote:

> "Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message

> news:Opsusf05HHA.4584@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>> Saucy wrote:

>>> "Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message

>>> news:8lr0d3dmm69dpuv2fsuq2tm9akql32bnos@4ax.com...

>>>> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:54:40 -0400, Tom Porterfield

>>>> <tpporter@mvps.org> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down and any

>>>>> attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is not a

>>>>> valid

>>>>> license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.

>>>>>

>>>>> My recommendation is that you DO NOT do anything that would cause Vista

>>>>> to attempt to validate, such as downloading software from MS that

>>>>> requires validation.

>>>>>

>>>>> WGA critics, let's here what you have to say.

>>>>

>>>> I hate to be one that says I told you so. Again, Microsoft proves to

>>>> the world that it is totally incompetent. For a company as large as

>>>> Microsoft considering WHAT their business is to have servers go down

>>>> and impact probably tens of millions if not more customers world wide

>>>> due to their lax security and utter stupidity and remain that way for

>>>> more than a few minutes is laughable in the extreme. What are they

>>>> saying now, check back on Tuesday?

>>>>

>>>> I have no idea where Billy G is in the world at the moment, rest

>>>> assured alarm bells are going off in Redmond and he's sweating bullets

>>>> and probably screaming his lungs off at somebody for this latest

>>>> disaster. This is one of if not the biggest blunders in Microsoft's

>>>> checkered history and it will cost them big time in lost creditability

>>>> and respect and surely will increase anger towards them AND IT SHOULD!

>>>>

>>>> It too should be the death knell for all kinds of half-ass activation

>>>> schemes that Microsoft and everybody else knows doesn't stop hackers

>>>> or pirates in the first place, but it won't be. As usual, it is Joe

>>>> six pack that suffers because of Microsoft arrogance and stupidity.

>>>>

>>>> This space reserved for idiots like Frank to squeal it isn't

>>>> Microsoft's fault.

>>>>

>>>> Reserved for Frank to make an ass of himself ====>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> It is a bit of an alarm bell. The activation strategy needs to be

>>> reconsidered, of course, but only to some degree.

>>>

>>> I *think* the problem is that after detecting a non-valid install [even

>>> errorneously] reduced functionality kicks in.

>>>

>>> They shouldn't be so fast. A good substantial time period needs to exist

>>> .. perhaps a month .. *but at least a week* .. before anything at all

>>> save a message box occurs. This would preclude events such as has occured

>>> this weekend. I'm very surprised validation works so quickly against

>>> perceived violators. It works much too fast [considering all the room for

>>> error][and as this weekend has shown].

>>>

>>> Saucy

>>

>>

>> But here you are talking with people who

>>

>> 1. Know of the existence of these groups

>> 2. Are computer literate enough to think of checking on Google etc

>> 3. Are not likely to be thrown into a panic.

>>

>> Windows is used by the less well educated, the disabled and the elderly

>> and by businesses that depend on things working. This kind of thing has

>> system admins on the run for hours before it is known what caused it,

>> yesterday out system at work died because someone in Alabama dug up a

>> fiber optic cable. Our IT people not only had to field dozens of calls

>> from facilities that were prevented from working they had to spend hours

>> fixing problems that users had caused trying to fix things themselves in

>> reports that were half way done before the trouble hit. We are a very

>> small corporation but nonetheless you are talking hundreds of man hours,

>> maybe more.

>>

>> Multiply this by the thousands in the country as a whole and you see the

>> true price of this folly, but that's alright, Microsoft won't have to pay

>> it, right?

>>

>> The problem didn't start in a month, or a week, it started right as the

>> server went down.

>

>

>

> No, but what is occuring AFAICT is that when Windows is "validated" it

> flunks because the server went down. Perhaps a system that simply says

> "Server unavailable" plus a week's grace period before anything happens.

> Instead, suddenly, reduced functionality kicks in.

 

One question for you though. Why should it EVER need to talk to any server

in the first place?

 

Example, my father likes model railroads. In his house, the entire attic

is one giant model railroad in progress. Not sure on the exact size but

1,000 sqft isn't unthinkable and I am probably too small here.

 

Now to control all this, these days, you generally need a PC and a windows

PC at that as most software is windows based.

 

Said PC however does *not* need an internet connection (nor is there one

available up there). All it needs to do is run one program that controls a

bunch of trains.

 

So how would *that* fare with Vista? He actually asked me this today

seeing how most PCs one buys today are sold with Vista and I had no answer.

 

I would actually really like to know though how Vista deals with a PC that

doesn't have an internet connection with its WPA/WGA stuff.

 

--

Stephan

2003 Yamaha R6

 

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯

å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message

news:8lr0d3dmm69dpuv2fsuq2tm9akql32bnos@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:54:40 -0400, Tom Porterfield

> <tpporter@mvps.org> wrote:

> WHAT their business is to have servers go down

> and impact probably tens of millions if not more customers world wide

 

Amazing that many people were validating there Vista when the servers were

down. That is one popular OS.

"Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message

news:4dOdnSTt7dgVF03bnZ2dneKdnZzinZ2d@giganews.com...

> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 14:54:12 -0400, Saucy wrote:

>

>> "Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message

>> news:Opsusf05HHA.4584@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>> Saucy wrote:

>>>> "Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message

>>>> news:8lr0d3dmm69dpuv2fsuq2tm9akql32bnos@4ax.com...

>>>>> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:54:40 -0400, Tom Porterfield

>>>>> <tpporter@mvps.org> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down and

>>>>>> any

>>>>>> attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is not a

>>>>>> valid

>>>>>> license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> My recommendation is that you DO NOT do anything that would cause

>>>>>> Vista

>>>>>> to attempt to validate, such as downloading software from MS that

>>>>>> requires validation.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> WGA critics, let's here what you have to say.

>>>>>

>>>>> I hate to be one that says I told you so. Again, Microsoft proves to

>>>>> the world that it is totally incompetent. For a company as large as

>>>>> Microsoft considering WHAT their business is to have servers go down

>>>>> and impact probably tens of millions if not more customers world wide

>>>>> due to their lax security and utter stupidity and remain that way for

>>>>> more than a few minutes is laughable in the extreme. What are they

>>>>> saying now, check back on Tuesday?

>>>>>

>>>>> I have no idea where Billy G is in the world at the moment, rest

>>>>> assured alarm bells are going off in Redmond and he's sweating bullets

>>>>> and probably screaming his lungs off at somebody for this latest

>>>>> disaster. This is one of if not the biggest blunders in Microsoft's

>>>>> checkered history and it will cost them big time in lost creditability

>>>>> and respect and surely will increase anger towards them AND IT SHOULD!

>>>>>

>>>>> It too should be the death knell for all kinds of half-ass activation

>>>>> schemes that Microsoft and everybody else knows doesn't stop hackers

>>>>> or pirates in the first place, but it won't be. As usual, it is Joe

>>>>> six pack that suffers because of Microsoft arrogance and stupidity.

>>>>>

>>>>> This space reserved for idiots like Frank to squeal it isn't

>>>>> Microsoft's fault.

>>>>>

>>>>> Reserved for Frank to make an ass of himself ====>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> It is a bit of an alarm bell. The activation strategy needs to be

>>>> reconsidered, of course, but only to some degree.

>>>>

>>>> I *think* the problem is that after detecting a non-valid install [even

>>>> errorneously] reduced functionality kicks in.

>>>>

>>>> They shouldn't be so fast. A good substantial time period needs to

>>>> exist

>>>> .. perhaps a month .. *but at least a week* .. before anything at all

>>>> save a message box occurs. This would preclude events such as has

>>>> occured

>>>> this weekend. I'm very surprised validation works so quickly against

>>>> perceived violators. It works much too fast [considering all the room

>>>> for

>>>> error][and as this weekend has shown].

>>>>

>>>> Saucy

>>>

>>>

>>> But here you are talking with people who

>>>

>>> 1. Know of the existence of these groups

>>> 2. Are computer literate enough to think of checking on Google etc

>>> 3. Are not likely to be thrown into a panic.

>>>

>>> Windows is used by the less well educated, the disabled and the elderly

>>> and by businesses that depend on things working. This kind of thing has

>>> system admins on the run for hours before it is known what caused it,

>>> yesterday out system at work died because someone in Alabama dug up a

>>> fiber optic cable. Our IT people not only had to field dozens of calls

>>> from facilities that were prevented from working they had to spend hours

>>> fixing problems that users had caused trying to fix things themselves in

>>> reports that were half way done before the trouble hit. We are a very

>>> small corporation but nonetheless you are talking hundreds of man hours,

>>> maybe more.

>>>

>>> Multiply this by the thousands in the country as a whole and you see the

>>> true price of this folly, but that's alright, Microsoft won't have to

>>> pay

>>> it, right?

>>>

>>> The problem didn't start in a month, or a week, it started right as the

>>> server went down.

>>

>>

>>

>> No, but what is occuring AFAICT is that when Windows is "validated" it

>> flunks because the server went down. Perhaps a system that simply says

>> "Server unavailable" plus a week's grace period before anything happens.

>> Instead, suddenly, reduced functionality kicks in.

>

> One question for you though. Why should it EVER need to talk to any server

> in the first place?

>

> Example, my father likes model railroads. In his house, the entire attic

> is one giant model railroad in progress. Not sure on the exact size but

> 1,000 sqft isn't unthinkable and I am probably too small here.

>

> Now to control all this, these days, you generally need a PC and a windows

> PC at that as most software is windows based.

>

> Said PC however does *not* need an internet connection (nor is there one

> available up there). All it needs to do is run one program that controls a

> bunch of trains.

>

> So how would *that* fare with Vista? He actually asked me this today

> seeing how most PCs one buys today are sold with Vista and I had no

> answer.

>

> I would actually really like to know though how Vista deals with a PC that

> doesn't have an internet connection with its WPA/WGA stuff.

>

> --

> Stephan

> 2003 Yamaha R6

>

> å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯

> å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

 

 

That's easy.

 

1. Activate by telephone.

 

or

 

2. Install an earlier version e.g. Windows 2000 that doens't require

activation.

keepout@yahoo.com.invalid wrote:

>

> I'm just curious as to how many errors and problems existed with

> pencils and type writers compared to the PROGRESS we now enjoy,

> spending 75% of the time keeping the OS from self destructing ?

> At worst a pencil sharpener or 2nd pencil would keep work from coming

> to a 3 day stand still while someone finds another box of pencils.

 

I never thought I'd again hear the canard "computers can only do what humans

can do." Only a true Luddite would come up with such a bizarre comparison.

 

Even, as in your example, the computer was up only 25% of the time, the PC

on your desk could out-perform 1000 people with pencils. Even if the pencils

didn't need sharpening.

The issue has been resolved.

 

Visit: http://www.microsoft.com/genuine/default.aspx?displaylang=en

and click on "Validate Windows". Afterward, log-off your account and

log back on and the Windows Vista Aero feature will return to normal

functionality.

 

--

Carey Frisch

Microsoft MVP

Windows Shell/User

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

"Tom Porterfield" wrote:

 

Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down and any

attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is not a valid

license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.

 

My recommendation is that you DO NOT do anything that would cause Vista

to attempt to validate, such as downloading software from MS that

requires validation.

 

WGA critics, let's here what you have to say.

--

Tom Porterfield

"Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message

news:4dOdnSTt7dgVF03bnZ2dneKdnZzinZ2d@giganews.com...

> One question for you though. Why should it EVER need to talk to any server

> in the first place?

>

> Example, my father likes model railroads. In his house, the entire attic

> is one giant model railroad in progress. Not sure on the exact size but

> 1,000 sqft isn't unthinkable and I am probably too small here.

>

> Now to control all this, these days, you generally need a PC and a windows

> PC at that as most software is windows based.

>

> Said PC however does *not* need an internet connection (nor is there one

> available up there). All it needs to do is run one program that controls a

> bunch of trains.

>

> So how would *that* fare with Vista? He actually asked me this today

> seeing how most PCs one buys today are sold with Vista and I had no

> answer.

>

> I would actually really like to know though how Vista deals with a PC that

> doesn't have an internet connection with its WPA/WGA stuff.

>

 

 

Well my Samsung comes with a pre-activated Vista.

No need to ever call M$ unless you need an update, even after a reinstall

from the dvd

I expect many others are like this.

On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 16:39:45 -0400, Saucy wrote:

> "Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message

> news:4dOdnSTt7dgVF03bnZ2dneKdnZzinZ2d@giganews.com...

>> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 14:54:12 -0400, Saucy wrote:

>>

>>> "Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message

>>> news:Opsusf05HHA.4584@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>>> Saucy wrote:

>>>>> "Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message

>>>>> news:8lr0d3dmm69dpuv2fsuq2tm9akql32bnos@4ax.com...

>>>>>> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:54:40 -0400, Tom Porterfield

>>>>>> <tpporter@mvps.org> wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down and

>>>>>>> any

>>>>>>> attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is not a

>>>>>>> valid

>>>>>>> license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> My recommendation is that you DO NOT do anything that would cause

>>>>>>> Vista

>>>>>>> to attempt to validate, such as downloading software from MS that

>>>>>>> requires validation.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> WGA critics, let's here what you have to say.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> I hate to be one that says I told you so. Again, Microsoft proves to

>>>>>> the world that it is totally incompetent. For a company as large as

>>>>>> Microsoft considering WHAT their business is to have servers go down

>>>>>> and impact probably tens of millions if not more customers world wide

>>>>>> due to their lax security and utter stupidity and remain that way for

>>>>>> more than a few minutes is laughable in the extreme. What are they

>>>>>> saying now, check back on Tuesday?

>>>>>>

>>>>>> I have no idea where Billy G is in the world at the moment, rest

>>>>>> assured alarm bells are going off in Redmond and he's sweating bullets

>>>>>> and probably screaming his lungs off at somebody for this latest

>>>>>> disaster. This is one of if not the biggest blunders in Microsoft's

>>>>>> checkered history and it will cost them big time in lost creditability

>>>>>> and respect and surely will increase anger towards them AND IT SHOULD!

>>>>>>

>>>>>> It too should be the death knell for all kinds of half-ass activation

>>>>>> schemes that Microsoft and everybody else knows doesn't stop hackers

>>>>>> or pirates in the first place, but it won't be. As usual, it is Joe

>>>>>> six pack that suffers because of Microsoft arrogance and stupidity.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> This space reserved for idiots like Frank to squeal it isn't

>>>>>> Microsoft's fault.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Reserved for Frank to make an ass of himself ====>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> It is a bit of an alarm bell. The activation strategy needs to be

>>>>> reconsidered, of course, but only to some degree.

>>>>>

>>>>> I *think* the problem is that after detecting a non-valid install [even

>>>>> errorneously] reduced functionality kicks in.

>>>>>

>>>>> They shouldn't be so fast. A good substantial time period needs to

>>>>> exist

>>>>> .. perhaps a month .. *but at least a week* .. before anything at all

>>>>> save a message box occurs. This would preclude events such as has

>>>>> occured

>>>>> this weekend. I'm very surprised validation works so quickly against

>>>>> perceived violators. It works much too fast [considering all the room

>>>>> for

>>>>> error][and as this weekend has shown].

>>>>>

>>>>> Saucy

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> But here you are talking with people who

>>>>

>>>> 1. Know of the existence of these groups

>>>> 2. Are computer literate enough to think of checking on Google etc

>>>> 3. Are not likely to be thrown into a panic.

>>>>

>>>> Windows is used by the less well educated, the disabled and the elderly

>>>> and by businesses that depend on things working. This kind of thing has

>>>> system admins on the run for hours before it is known what caused it,

>>>> yesterday out system at work died because someone in Alabama dug up a

>>>> fiber optic cable. Our IT people not only had to field dozens of calls

>>>> from facilities that were prevented from working they had to spend hours

>>>> fixing problems that users had caused trying to fix things themselves in

>>>> reports that were half way done before the trouble hit. We are a very

>>>> small corporation but nonetheless you are talking hundreds of man hours,

>>>> maybe more.

>>>>

>>>> Multiply this by the thousands in the country as a whole and you see the

>>>> true price of this folly, but that's alright, Microsoft won't have to

>>>> pay

>>>> it, right?

>>>>

>>>> The problem didn't start in a month, or a week, it started right as the

>>>> server went down.

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> No, but what is occuring AFAICT is that when Windows is "validated" it

>>> flunks because the server went down. Perhaps a system that simply says

>>> "Server unavailable" plus a week's grace period before anything happens.

>>> Instead, suddenly, reduced functionality kicks in.

>>

>> One question for you though. Why should it EVER need to talk to any server

>> in the first place?

>>

>> Example, my father likes model railroads. In his house, the entire attic

>> is one giant model railroad in progress. Not sure on the exact size but

>> 1,000 sqft isn't unthinkable and I am probably too small here.

>>

>> Now to control all this, these days, you generally need a PC and a windows

>> PC at that as most software is windows based.

>>

>> Said PC however does *not* need an internet connection (nor is there one

>> available up there). All it needs to do is run one program that controls a

>> bunch of trains.

>>

>> So how would *that* fare with Vista? He actually asked me this today

>> seeing how most PCs one buys today are sold with Vista and I had no

>> answer.

>>

>> I would actually really like to know though how Vista deals with a PC that

>> doesn't have an internet connection with its WPA/WGA stuff.

>>

>> --

>> Stephan

>> 2003 Yamaha R6

>>

>> å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯

>> å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

>

>

>

> That's easy.

>

> 1. Activate by telephone.

 

First-time activation...fair enough (can just temporarily use network then).

 

But what I am wondering about is Vista's "need/want" to call home? What if

it can't call home?

>

> or

>

> 2. Install an earlier version e.g. Windows 2000 that doens't require

> activation.

 

Assuming *drivers* are available...=)

 

 

--

Stephan

2003 Yamaha R6

 

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯

å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

* Charlie Tame:

> Tom Porterfield wrote:

>> Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down and any

>> attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is not a valid

>> license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.

>>

>> My recommendation is that you DO NOT do anything that would cause Vista

>> to attempt to validate, such as downloading software from MS that

>> requires validation.

>>

>> WGA critics, let's here what you have to say.

>

>

> Nothing much, it wasn't "If" but "When".

>

> You might add turn off auto updating completely, thereby leaving

> yourself vulnerable to any zero day exploits, but of course (Hopefully)

> preventing Microsoft's own zero day exploit.

>

> Do NOT turn your machine off at all if you don't have to.

>

> MS CANNOT MANAGE ONE SERVER!

>

> Why in hell would anyone entrust their business to such a ramshackle

> organization that cannot fix one server "Until Monday".

>

>

> They have no backups? No system for on the fly replacement? No redundancy?

 

Exactly!

> Something stinks here, badly.

 

Worse than my critters crap baking in the back yard.

 

 

-Michael

Tom Porterfield wrote:

> Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down and any

> attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is not a valid

> license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.

>

> My recommendation is that you DO NOT do anything that would cause Vista

> to attempt to validate, such as downloading software from MS that

> requires validation.

>

> WGA critics, let's here what you have to say.

 

Microsoft is reporting the issue is now resolved. If you were impacted

you can go to http://www.microsoft.com/genuine and re-validate your copy

of Vista and all should return to normal.

--

Tom Porterfield

On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 23:24:19 +0100, "dennis@home"

<dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:

>

>"Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message

>news:4dOdnSTt7dgVF03bnZ2dneKdnZzinZ2d@giganews.com...

>

>> One question for you though. Why should it EVER need to talk to any server

>> in the first place?

>>

>> Example, my father likes model railroads. In his house, the entire attic

>> is one giant model railroad in progress. Not sure on the exact size but

>> 1,000 sqft isn't unthinkable and I am probably too small here.

>>

>> Now to control all this, these days, you generally need a PC and a windows

>> PC at that as most software is windows based.

>>

>> Said PC however does *not* need an internet connection (nor is there one

>> available up there). All it needs to do is run one program that controls a

>> bunch of trains.

>>

>> So how would *that* fare with Vista? He actually asked me this today

>> seeing how most PCs one buys today are sold with Vista and I had no

>> answer.

>>

>> I would actually really like to know though how Vista deals with a PC that

>> doesn't have an internet connection with its WPA/WGA stuff.

>>

>

>

>Well my Samsung comes with a pre-activated Vista.

>No need to ever call M$ unless you need an update, even after a reinstall

>from the dvd

>I expect many others are like this.

 

You are missing the point. Vista "phones home" randomly on it's own

behind your back. That is how you can get tagged as counterfeit.