Comments on: Windows Update for WHS – March 2008

By: Craig

Craig — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 21:35:47 +0000

Correction, that’s 12 billion dollar plus lawsuits having found Microsoft guilty of illegal activities.

By: Eric

Eric — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 21:31:49 +0000

Microsoft Litigation Cases
http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2005010107100653

Why shouldn’t the truth be known, unless you got something to hide?

Why shouldn’t Microsoft stop selling WHS on multiple hard drive configurations with a proven design flaw that leads to data corruption?

Another class-action lawsuit is coming!

By: Craig

Craig — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 21:22:32 +0000

Guess, what? Some folks aren’t buying it! And Linux doesn’t make it’s customers criminals called pirates just to earn an income for it.

How much Open Source Intellectual Property is Microsoft Infringing upon?

Being how Microsoft’s software is ALL proprietary source code. That means their hiding something that they wouldn’t want the public to know. Could it be that their borrowing open source code (copying it) as 12 billion dollar plus lawsuits having won in many courts already have proven!

I’ll provide a long list if you would like… of actual real cases having found Microsoft guilty and fined. Let the record speak for itself!

Just start reading the many cases here:
http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2005/07/14/microsofts-lawsuit-payouts-amount-to-around–9-billion

By: Aaron

Aaron — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 13:34:03 +0000

“As for pirates, that’s all hypothetical”

Right. I suppose it’s just “hypothetical” that someone will take my iPhone if I leave it in my car unlocked downtown. I’ll avoid doing that anyway, thanks.

The fact is that Microsoft’s products are not “open” and for the most part they’re not “free”. There are millions and millions of other software products in this category. You can argue that open source is a better business model, and others will argue that it’s not. In the meantime, Microsoft is selling their software and they’re trying to protect it as best as they think possible. If you don’t like it then don’t buy it! It’s no secret this stuff is in there!

By: Tara

Tara — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 21:30:22 +0000

WGA doesn’t even slow down your so called “pirates” anyhow.

Take China for example. Millions of Windows copies. And these types are well educated U.S. trained Ph.D types. Just meaning how easy it is, and if you asked me Chinese are smarter anyhow for not affording high cost buggy software. For them, it’s just a learning curve, until they got their own improved version that Americans will be buying back soon, like all the rest of made in China products the good old USA isn’t producing anymore!

I don’t see the point of having to anilnate your customers into pirates. Linux has no pirates, their open source code is FREE and it’s developing, advancing and without 6 billion dollars funding! You really gotta love open source code folks trying to help others improve.

By: Sean

Sean — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 21:17:11 +0000

Nobody wants WGA dude, just like DRM. It’s not needed and you don’t hear Linux users complaining about it. It’s only Windows users that are forced to buy it.

By: Justin G.

Justin G. — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 21:15:58 +0000

In a case filed on June 29, 2006 in the United States District Court of Seattle, plaintiffs Engineered Process Controls and Univex, along with individual end users David DiDomizio, Edward Misfud and Martin Sifuentes, have charged that Microsoft’s technology amounts to a form of spyware.

By: Nathaniel

Nathaniel — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 21:14:41 +0000

Just suggesting that WGA keeps cost down is totally ridiculous! It actually cost more to include WGA for a FACT! As for pirates, that’s all hypothetical, and if Microsoft had been willing to be open, as in open source code, like Linux is, then there is no need what’s so ever for anyone to be labeled as a pirate.

By: Leslie

Leslie — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 21:13:41 +0000

WGA doesn’t work, it requires patches, is a complete unwanted feature and worse, it affords this additional cost upon the consumers.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 15:11:07 +0000

Depends on how you look at it. I could argue that it provides customer value by keeping the WHS pricing where it is. If MSFT kept the WGA out of their products then they could safely predict more pirating which would very likely lead to less sales which in turn may require them to increase pricing. So I personally don’t mind having WGA. But maybe you’d be happier with a $250 pricetag if it didn’t include WGA?

Then again, I haven’t seen this expiration notice bug yet. Have you?

By: Brett

Brett — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 21:07:30 +0000

So basically despite having paid for your WHS at the store with receipt in hand, then having to activate online, and validating each time by using Windows Update, we are still being told, were all them pirates!

Do we really need yet another patch that offers nothing we paid for? Does anyone think customers want to pay for what Microsoft calls the Windows Genuine Advantage, unless everyone doesn’t mind having to be treated like criminals!

If this sort of crap wasn’t install to being with, there be no need to patch it. It serves no real value to customers at all.