[snips]
On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 01:49:58 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | The other problem with WGA is that its very name is oxymoronic: there
> is no | advantage for users who pass WGA's tests. Microsoft attempted to
> add a carrot | to go with its WGA stick by tying it to certain products
> (such as the first | releases of Internet Explorer 7—subsequent versions
> have had their WGA | requirement removed), but for all intents and
> purposes, passing a WGA check | brought no additional benefits to the
> end user. Fixing WGA's flaws may not be | enough here: Microsoft should
> really take a long, hard look at whether or not | WGA is really
> necessary at all.
On a related note, they really need to fix their entire validation
process.
Example: you want to download some component from Microsoft. What's the
first thing it does? Requires authentication. Basically, "prove this is
a legitimate copy of Windows."
So you do, and you download the component. You go to install it and what
does it do? Right - ensures this is a legitimate copy of Windows.
The first validation is doubly irrelevant. First, the application/tool/
etc simply _won't work_ if the OS you're installing it on isn't
validated, so validating the download is pointless. Second, if one
_does_ download from a validated copy of Windows, what stops them making
5,000 copies after this? Nothing - so again, the validation is pointless.
Windows users have to jump through enough hoops already without making
them go through _completely useless_ validation processes which don't
actually validate anything meaningful.
|
|
