Talk:Windows Product Activation

Factual errors

In truth, ANY SLP 2.1 or 2.0 key can be used with any motherboard, as long as the installed client certificate matches the SLP 2.x data in the BIOS on the motherboard. While it's possible MS may start detecting hacks in the future by comparing the SLIC 2.1 data with the key in the future, this has not happened yet. The same was true of SLP 1.0 in Windows XP. ANY royalty OEM key will work, provided the signature is present in BIOS and checks out with the OEMBIOS files. In fact, MS themselves provides a valid SLP key for windows XP professional on their web site, to help out people trying to reinstall with their COA OEM key, which all got blacklisted because people were transferring the stickers to other computers.74.211.59.62 (talk) 22:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Pro-Microsoft bias in this article

Why is there a subtitle called "Benefits" in this wiki article? It really should be "Benefits to Microsoft", because it's really listing out how Microsoft benefits from activation, not really the end-user for the most part. End-users always received Windows Updates even before activation, so that's not really a new benefit due to activation

Activation is a hassle for some people who change around their hardware often, like reinstalling Windows to get clean registries and faster computers, etc. So I will make a change, but if any of you guys disagree with me, just revert, and please discuss why you're reverting here. 71.246.101.226 17:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The article has a pro- and anti- section in order to result in a neutral POV for the entire article. The argument is that the "benefits to Microsoft" are in fact end-user benefits as well because if Microsoft was getting no benefits from producing Windows, it would stop doing so, and we would no longer have it as an operating system. Hyphz (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't find it a benefit with perfectly legal systems. Part of my work is upgrading, or possibly migrating, commercial fishing vessels' computer systems. They literally may have no Internet or telephone capability when switching to a backup machine, and Microsoft is not reachable. Embedded, or at least dedicated and mission-critical computers have real problems when told their OS will stop working in 3 days. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, and I'm not pro-Microsoft myself, but I am just presenting the standard opposite site to the argument. If Microsoft couldn't protect themselves against piracy, they might stop producing Windows altogether due to insufficient financial reward. Which is better - an OS that'll stop working in 3 days, or no OS at all? Windows must be valuable to you somehow, otherwise you could just use Linux.Hyphz (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I get no value from it being Windows or Linux, and can support either. Nevertheless, if I can find a "chartplotter", the critical application for fishermen, that runs on LINUX, I have a selling point that the LINUX software won't leave them without a working chartplotter. In that case, the choice is no longer between an OS that will stop working in 3 days, or no OS at all.

It's my understanding that Microsoft may have some special keys for system integrators, so I would be able to reactivate the halted copy or suppress the shutdown. Nevertheless, WGA is an incentive, in some markets, to develop LINUX versions of applications. It's not that I draw value from Windows as Windows; I draw value from having applications my customers need. In general, I find LINUX easier to support than Windows. If the market responds by having LINUX applications, I might price them lower than the comparable Windows product, to make them more attractive and reduce my support headaches. Indeed, there may be at least one Open Source application of this type, so I'd charge only for my support services -- which is where I make my profit.

I suspect Microsoft has ways of avoiding the problem for mission-critical software. I might, perhaps, get some variant of Windows intended for dedicated systems, and to which the end user can't easily add applications. The point is that with enough market need, alternatives will emerge, including Microsoft alternatives. Large corporations with multi-user licenses do not get shut down whenever a computer configuration changes. Microsoft may not be responsive to individual user frustration, but OEM and enterprise markets may get their attention.

To keep this in scope for the articles, would it be worth having subheads for "Benefits", "Disadvantages", and "Market-driven Workarounds"? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Does "Benefits claimed by Microsoft" sound appropriate for the current "Benefits" section? Okw1003 (talk) 11:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

All bias now removed. Discussion closed.--Michaelkourlas (talk) 22:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

More bias (originally uncategorized)

The article states: "Many people see product activation as a guilty until proven innocent system because one can be punished as a software pirate (by not being able to use one's computer properly) without a fair trial"

"Many people" should at least get a quote needed tag, or perhaps be modified. Some change to this will in my opinion give the article more of a NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.217.34.169 (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The NPOV dispute is obvious. There's a list of "Benefits" to product activation listed, allegedly to achieve NPOV. However, these are benefits to Microsoft, not the consumer. NPOV does NOT require inventing praise that is not deserved; if something can be objectively determined to be detrimental, there's nothing wrong with labelling it as such in an article.

If there are real advantages to the customer (as opposed to invented claims of advantages) derived from product activation, by all means, list them here. Personally, I'm not aware of any.

I'll be modifying the heading of this section to point out these are benefits to Microsoft.

-Stian (talk) 06:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is there an NPOV template on the article with no NPOV dispute here on the talk page?

70.119.185.228 11:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm calling it out. The article seems to be heavily slanted, especially the section "How Pointless Windows Activation is" with the sentence, "So it seems pointless to enforce Product Activation on end users like remember this saying 'Locks only keep out the honest people.' Not to mention this article is in need of a serious clean-up and needs to cite its sources. Kuribo 17:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You're perfectly right, and I tried to change it a bit so it sounds better. Maybe I should add a "benefits" page. --72.139.74.72 19:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, I tried my best at making this an OK article, and I have decided that since no-one is actually doing anything here, I am going to remove the tags. I have added a benefits page, which evens it out. If you disagree with this, simply re-add the tags. 72.139.74.72 18:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

All bias now removed. Discussion closed.--Michaelkourlas (talk) 22:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Clear anti-Microsoft bias

I’ve added the NPOV tag, because this article clearly has a bias against Microsoft’s activation requirements for Windows. It even makes use of the term “sadly”—there is absolutely no way that this sort of biased language could be justified in a discussion here. The article is full of original research, and the personal opinions of users. I’m going to create an account, and then begin proposals for revisions to this article shortly. 207.81.100.176 (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

All bias now removed. Discussion closed.--Michaelkourlas (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup / Bias Removal

I have somewhat cleaned up the article, and hopefully removed some of the words and phrases which contributed to the NPOV issues. However, the Rationale section still sticks out like a sore thumb, and I'm not sure how to rewrite it. --Resplendent (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

All bias now removed. Discussion closed.--Michaelkourlas (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Deactivation/Licence Transferring

There should be a section on this. Can you deactivare a licence and move it elsewhere to new hardware? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.75.83.25 (talk) 12:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I would think you'd have to call Microsoft to organize it... if you feel you can find the information on it (and find reliable sources for it as well), feel free to add it in. --Michaelkourlas (talk) 17:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

If it's a full retail package, the license is definitely transferable to your new PC. You simply install it on the new computer, and activate by phone, and tell MS that you bought a new computer and aren't using the old one anymore. The new computer will be activated, and the previous one deactivated. If the installation is an OEM version (cheaper then a full retail product), then it is tied to that particular computer, and cannot be moved to a new computer without violating the license.74.211.59.62 (talk) 22:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

"Benefits" section

I suggest we remove this section. It is unnecessary and defeats the point of the article. The article should talk about the concept and how it works, not advertise why it is good or bad.--Michaelkourlas (talk) 23:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: I have removed it. If anyone disagrees, please discuss.--Michaelkourlas (talk) 23:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Wpa-success-win2k8.png removal

This screenshot shows nothing important. It just shows one sentence saying that Windows has been activated. There are too many pictures on this article considering the size of it anyway. The screenshot also has text selected and thus does not look that good. I thus have removed it. If anyone disagrees, please discuss it here.--Michaelkourlas (talk) 23:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No more citations are needed

I have revamped the citations. Unless someone does not agree with me, I will remove the citations templates.--Michaelkourlas (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)