Jump to content

Talk:Windows Genuine Advantage/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

using blog posts as references

um, i thought wikipedia didn't allow users to quote blogs for stories on alleged facts. Someone help me out here? --Julien Deveraux 22:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I don't understand how to replace a file. I get an upload warning which reads "A file with this name exists already, and cannot be overwritten. Please go back and upload this file under a new name." Here is the replacement file, if someone else knows how to replace the current one, please do so. The replacement file is taken directly from the wgalogon.dll file, and converted to PNG - unlike the current version it has not been cropped, and the alpha channel has been preserved.

New Image: http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/4441/wgalogomb8.png

Current cropped image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WGA_Logo.png

--Plamdi 11:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Plamdi

Basically, you would accept the overwritten file. However, I've done it, so don't worry about it. Hastin 09:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

the "digital inspiration" links at the bottom sounds like link spam. it takes you to a site that has some dubious articles and all links takes you to full-page-adwords.

WGA not required for Automatic Updates

As I added into the article, WGA is not required for security updates downloaded using the Automatic Updates feature.

"non-critical Windows updates are not presented by Automatic Updates" - Can someone mention what are the "non-critical" updates? If they are not critical, then why bother with them? (And note that WGA needs not be installed unless auto updates are set without user intervention.) Hoemaco (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Wine

Could someone who knows about this consolidate and elaborate on the relationship between Windows Genuine Advantage and Wine? The last page basically says Wine doesn't work with WGA (including a supporting link), while the former article claims WGA works in Wine without any reference.

It is/was said that ReactOS is trying to make sure that WGA finds that ReactOS is a valid copy of Windows. Thus, the WINE software would benefit as well. 24.241.229.253 (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

SP2

The first crack mentioned (the javascript one) appears to still work on SP2, not just versions prior, as of January 29th 2005, I am changing the article to reflect that.

Javascript hack still works as of February 28th with SP2.

no luck at 2006-06-20

New Windows Genuine Advantage cracked again by an Indian

http://supremophantom.blogspot.com/

WGA released March 1, 2006 can be bypassed (again)

About the "cracked by an Indian": if you make any changes to the WGA CLSID to allow yourself to disable or manage the add-on, Windows Update will (now) force you to reinstall it.

For a method that works as of March 7, 2006, see http://wiki.DjLizard.net/WGA#Method_two 'page erased'

The above statement supports Illegal activity!!! Kyle 15:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Has copyright totalitarianism proceeded so far that the removal of spyware is an illegal activity? 83.236.158.129 18:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You also don't need to pass WGA to get security updates. The article is wrong.

It is trivially easy to cause a false positive for WGA in XP without patching any binary data. This has been true for as long as WGA existed, and the method used to do so is very easily detectable by microsoft, and yet they do nothing. The XP check has to be intentionally weak for the method I know to keep working to this very day. The system assumes that the validation state has not changed if it fails to contact the validation servers. This info alone is enough for a computer savvy person to figure out how to bypass it. As the bypass is so trivial, WGA cannot even be considered a technological protection measure. 99.99.70.93 (talk) 03:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Circumvention

Why is this entire article about circumvention? Awfully scary for something like Wikipedia.

Indeed. I would like to point out if you are trying to circumvent the validation, you are probably using a pirated copy. DO NOT use Wikipedia as a place to discuss illegal modifications so you may circumvent lawful technology. Kyle 14:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you trying to libel me? I used the previous WGA tool (the one that you have to consciously run before you download certain MS software) successfully and had no problem with it. But I certainly don't find a phone home feature that transfers unspecified information to Microsoft servers any more acceptable than I find ICQ's "we own your messages" terms of service. This concerns my workplace machine, and since I am a software developer, WGA may mean transferring business secrets to a potential competitor. (I'm not using Windows on my private machines since there are far better OSes.)
Another "feature" of Windows (at least with Visual Studio .NET installed) that infuriates me is the crash feedback dialog which I don't know how to disable. Even when our own software crashes, this pops up and asks the user to transfer debugging information to Redmond. Seems they like to know what's going on in the industry. 83.236.158.129 18:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Silveroblivion, but keep in mind that we shouldn't hide that. there 'are' ways to bypass it. Or maybe we should fear and say nothing. after all, we were always at war with eurasia.

You happy with the tag I added Kyle? -- Damien Vryce

Yes. Thanks!! I'll keep that tag in mind...Kyle 15:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's a vote in favor of trying to circumvent the validation while using a legit copy. My laptop came with an OEM-installed version of XP Home, yet I've done everything I can to keep Microsoft from installing their validation tools on my computer. I don't want my computer "phoning home" to Microsoft or otherwise being forced to prove itself, even though I know I would (should) have no problems. What I take issue with is Microsoft's practices, particularly with this piece of software--I feel like they are making a blatant and concerted effort to get this anti-piracy software installed on users' computers, invisibly and with no recourse. --KeplerNiko 16 June 2006

I'm not sure that it makes much sense to try to limit verifiable information. I don't know that containing the information itself is illegal. It's the use of the information that tends to be illegal. However, at least, for me, I like looking at it. I came across it and found it rather laughable that one (small) piece of their software has so many vulnerabilities. I think, honestly, it can be used as one small example of how Microsoft doesn't think about the things they do. In fact, I think that it'd be interesting to compile an entire article devoted to the publically known, verificable flubbers, with proof, sources, and documentation, which could be used totally in truth to convince someone why Microsoft is bad.

In effect, it shows the way they use forethought, and how they respond to things, and I think that's pertinent information for the advocate of any other operating system. Hell, even Apple could use it so long as they don't have much on their oops list.

In this way, truth can be used to promote a positive, healthy, exchange of information that can eventually lead to new innovations in software, and, in reality, be favorable to the market as a whole. fd0man 18:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, Guys? Its a Man-Made product so it is bound to have errors in it, and besides that, if you want to look at it that way, then everything is bad because the manufacturers want to make money so that they can feed their family. -Adam H 17:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Fd0man, (our open) encyclopedia policy has nothing to do with making better software (and particularly not better proprietary software ;)). And Kyle, if you really feel this is a legal issue you should bring it to the attention at wikien. Keep in mind, the definition of "illegal" is "whatever the 800 pound gorrilla says is illegal" --in this case its the U.S. system and its particular definition of what IP is, as related to one of its largest private corporations (political donors, etc. it can all be quite incestuous.)
The information itself is not a state secret (and would no longer qualify if it was leaked anyway ;)), nor is it a trade secret, nor is Wikipedia somehow liable for allowing it to be included (for whatever period of time its in the article). We do however have an obligation to accuracy and inclusion of material which is true (whatever that means), or at least corroborated by citable links and sources. (Isnt a link so much more useful as a source than a book? Who has time to go look up a particular book?)
The only real issue is the inclusion of the two "new methods" which appear to be original research, or otherwise require WP:CITE. -Ste|vertigo 16:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you all think of perhaps putting the Circumvention section into its own article, "Circumvention of Windows Genuine Advantage"? That would put the controversy onto its own page and let this article develop a little more neatly on its own. Kimpire 05:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that Kyle has a problem with the legality. It was never said to be a 'trade secret'. The problem comes in when you set wikipedia up with articles that tell users things that are illegal, and give partial instruction on how to carry out these things. That begins to deteriorate the viability and reputation of all wikipedia articles. I believe that it would be much safer just to remove the section. No-one is getting hurt by doing so. -- Damien Vryce
Its not necessary to do either. I agree with Damiens critique of the split - we dont separate articles based on politics or legality. Besides the article isnt long enough to merit any split (see m:mergism). The 'remove it because its "safer(?)"' notion is almost as valid as the split idea. -Ste|vertigo 00:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It may be that following the instructions in the article is illegal in some places (particularly the US). The same is true of the bong article, which includes design details that would benefit someone who wanted to smoke pot. I don't see how either is a liability issue for Wikipedia. -- Pakaran 03:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hasn't it been ruled--in the US, at least--that simply telling someone how to committ a crime is not a crime? Doesn't "Free Speech" factor in here? In my mind, this article is perfectly fine. Don't you think Microsoft would have already asked for it to be removed if they cared about it? --Kinghajj 17:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It isn't a liability, it doesn't violate any law, it just isn't in good taste. Not everything should be on wikipedia. If people want instructions how to hack windows they should go to other websites such as [Governmentsecurity.org] or the like. I don't think that Wikipedia should have a name for helping people find out how to do illegal things. All we want to do is keep Wikipedia a viable, trusted encyclopedia. This can not be done with articles such as this. -- Damien Vryce 17:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I have brought this to the attention of the Administrators via the announcement board

It should be deleted because it is how-to information and Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, although there are other reasons to delete it. I think that everything below and including the "As of the 1st of March, 2006" paragraph should be deleted. The material above that may need to be edited to make it acceptable. Talking about the circumventions is fine, but not how to implement them. -- Kjkolb 21:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
WAS 4.250 removed the text and I removed the links to how to circumvent WGA. While it might be okay to link to how-to sites, these particular links are not necessary for the article and are not reputable sources. Also, Wikipedia should not help to circumvent a company's antifraud measures, even if some of its users disagree with the company's actions (I don't have an opinion). -- Kjkolb 22:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kjkolb. I didn't want to make an action myself. -- Damien Vryce — Preceding undated comment added 15:32, 11 April 2006

Circumvention is good, this program violates user's rihts! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realg187 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 22 March 2007

WGA Notifications

I took out the "free" and "tool" bit as POV. A different point of view is reflected in Pirating Windows? Get a free alert right on your desktop. The "critical" update KB905474 distribution began Tuesday accompanied by a beta EULA. 209.6.189.247 08:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not see why this is happening. An article should give all relevant advice. Information about circumvention is not in itself illegal and censoring this information goes against everything that Wikipedia stands for. Tzsch 00:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but encouraging infringing behaviour is illegal (see MGM v Grokster, IANAL). Besides which, the page is an encyclopedia article about WGA. WP:NOT an instruction manual. Cynical 23:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
We aren't encouraging infringing behaviour, nor providing instructions on how to bypass the thing. We probably should have some explanation though (a sentence or two discussing the concept, not step by step instructions).
The single sentence and link concerning circumvention should be expanded at least another sentence or two - rather than their removal.
zoney ♣ talk 12:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, people. WGA isn't even a protection system. The intent of WGA on XP is to alert people who do not know their operating system is pirated. It's supposed to catch the shady computer vendors who are using counterfeit discs and counterfeit keys. There are four classes of people who see these alerts. One is people who unknowingly bought unlicensed OS software. This is the intended target. Another is the false positives: those who's legitimate installation were tampered with by malware and the like. The third class is those people who's OS was repaired by someone else after they lost their disc and became no longer genuine. The final class of people are the actual pirates. The actual pirates already know their software isn't genuine, so WGA isn't even targetted at them. That is why it's so easy to beat. This falls outside the scope of the DMCA, as it only prevents discussion of technological measures that EFFECTIVELY CONTROL ACCESS, which WGA does not qualify for under XP. 99.99.70.93 (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Information sent

What informantion is sent to Microsoft by WGA ?

product key, PC maker, operating system version, PC bios information and the user's local setting and language.

http://www.microsoft.com/genuine/downloads/faq.aspx 

   * Windows product key
   * PC manufacturer
   * Operating System version
   * Windows XP product ID
   * PC BIOS information (make, version, date)
   * BIOS MD5 Checksum
   * User locale setting
   * Language version of the operating system
   * Office product key (if validating Office)
   * Hard drive serial number
   * Validation and installation results
   * IP address

Customer problems with WGA in the news

The BBC news site reports[1] this week that the WGA "Anti-piracy tool confuses users". Some users were being told erroneously they are using a counterfeit copy of XP. PCs sent away to suppliers' workshops for hardware repair can come back with a new version of XP that was installed with a generic key code. So where does that leave them? Many other problems are listed in the site visitors' comments. DFH 15:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

EULA Reference Removed

This used to read: "In the EULA of the latest WGA version (07/06/06) there is a line that reads:

We may also share the aggregate data with others, such as hardware and software vendors and volume licensees to help protect their license keys.

Which could certainly fulfill the criteria for spying if not Spyware."

However there was a misunderstanding - it speaks of aggregate data not individual, also the assumption is that it is only the OS licensing that is being queried not any other software. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

It is also speculation and asserting a prescriptive definition. SchmuckyTheCat 01:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Spyware

Is WGA really spyware? Category:Spyware is a sub category to Category:Malware. The article malware states that malware is software designed to infiltrate or damage a computer system, without the owner's informed consent. WGA does not infiltrate, damage or corrupt a computer. WGA is installed with the consent of the user unlike most other spyware/adware applications. An alternative is to rename Category:Spyware to something more neutral, for example Category:Suspected spyware, which not states indirectly that a program really is spyware (not only due to WGA). The last suggestion may be the best solution. --Ompd 20:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know a lot about WGA, but from what I've read here it is marked as a 'critical security update' and is thus installed -without- the user's consent in some cases. Kalo 23:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
It is installed without the user's informed consent, and 'phones home' on a regular basis (see the arstechnica article that is one of the refernces for the article). In other words, it infiltrates (through the lack of informed consent) and damages (through the harmful activity of phoning home with details of the user's computer) a user's computer, and therefore meets the test for spyware. That's why I added it to Category:Spyware
Many well-known spywares are installed WITH user's consents.--Hello World! 14:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
WGA does spy on users, phones home with data such as a BIOS Checksum and also installs without prior consent from a user. This is almost exactly the same as some pieces of spyware, so therefore WGA = Spyware.
It isn't spyware because it is installed with the users knowledge. The automatic updates are turned on MANUALLY thus the user knows what is going on to his/her computer or doesn't care. If they are already turned on, you can turn them off MANUALLY as well. The only reason it "phones home" is to check and make sure that the key that you have has not been posted on the internet for everybody to use, or to make sure that you aren't using one of these keys. All WGA "phones home" with is the country of residence, hardware hash, product ID, product code, data from WPA.DBL if one is created, and the product key. The hardware hash is not used by Microsoft for anything other than verification, and if they did use it for anything other that it, about the only thing they could use it for is research and development. There is only one problem, the program has ben designed to prevent this from happening. For more info see The Register. Adam H 17:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
"Phone home" tracking is enough to keep record on the person using the computer in case like traveling, provider change and so. Virtually everyday Microsoft may determinate the approximate location of the user WITHOUT their knowledge.

DRM

I've changed the 'purpose' of WGA (in the infobox) from 'Legitimate software control' (which sounds awfully like MS-POV weasel words) to 'Digital Rights Management' (which is an objective term, and which WGA meets the definition for:

'Digital Rights Management (often abbreviated to DRM) is any of several technologies used by publishers to control access to digital data (such as software, music, movies) ' (my emphasis)

The above is quoted directly from the opening sentence of the (current version of the) Digital Rights Management article. Cynical 21:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it back to the previous wording. WGA is a form of copy protection, not digital rights management. There are subtle but vital distinctions, primarily that DRM content is typically protected with an encryption scheme; Windows' WGA is not. It's also typically used to refer to artistic works; apart from visual styles and iconography and similar things, Windows is not an "artistic" work. -/- Warren 21:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
If I may be so bold to bring this discussion up again. Even if DRM is typically used to refer to "artistic" works - which I would argue is not the case (at least not anymore) - the definition of DRM still applies to software. Apple has a patent similar to Windows Genuine Advantage, which is classified as DRM and which specifically mentions OS X: http://www.google.com/patents/US20070288886. The fact that this wiki article doesn't mention DRM but almost everyone is calling it DRM, is a bit confusing IMHO. Aidinabedi (talk) 11:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

someone wrote this, is there any way to clean it up?

Unintended Consequences of WGA software The following is true:

In any non-trivial ad hoc open ended system there will be more unintended consequences than intended consequences.

This is true in the vast majority of non-trivial systems: the number of non-excluded and possible self-interactions is certainly much larger than then total number of atoms in the known Universe. Here the system of concern is the combination of Windows XP, the user's software, and the WGA software. It is ad hoc in nature because there is not 100% collaboration among the vendors, operating system, and the user in regards to every technical aspect of the system. It is open ended because new software or interactive data can be added at any time without additional system design. These conditions alone are enough to establish the situation described in the above statement.

Unintended consequences can include any aspect of machine operation where there is not complete and comprehensive systematic prevention by total lack on interaction or design, which in just about all cases is an impossible job without total systematic organization in all aspects of relevant operation. These consequences can be detrimental to the user in terms of machine performance (as an example of a particular type of unintended consequence among an astronomical number of possible types of consequences.)

The following are two examples of such unintended consequences. They are but two immediate examples taken from a brief and extremely limited experience of a single user with WGA software (compared to the unexamined possible experience of millions of users.) This suggests that it is likely that world-wide, each of large number of users is affected negatively, knowingly or unknowingly from the effects described, or from other unintended consequences due to the presence of the WGA software.

In these actual cases, the machine performance was in fact, negatively affected:

CASE NUMBER ONE, USER LOST MACHINE PERFORMANCE – the problem is that ZoneAlarm and WPASoftware are in a free running loop that cycles hundreds of times per second:

CASE NUMBER TWO, USER LOST ABILITY TO UPGRADE HIS AUTHENTIC WINDOWS XP SYSTEM BECAUSE OF DECIDING NOT TO INSTALL WPA:

The HP frame on this Windows XP, Help and Support Center window is persuasive evidence that Windows XP was pre-installed on this machine rendering the Microsoft validation logically unnecessary.

The Window below is the result of pressing the “Custom” button on the above Window. The resulting window normally presents optional and priority updates, each which can be selectively installed. In this unusual case, there is no way to avoid installing the Validation Tool in order to continue to use Microsoft Update to install security updates. The only update choices are to discontinue using Microsoft Update or download and install the Validation software.

Sure it needs to be written better, but it points to way to solution if you really look at it

I wrote it. When you dig out new information with truly new ideas, there is a lot of resistance. But every fact that I presented is rock solid if put to the test. So please test it rather than deleting the article 12 minutes after it is written. I was going back in to clean it up and it was deleted out from under me. Now my time has run out and I will have to do it another day.

Sure it needs to be simplified, but that can only happen through dialogue. That is why I put it out there. No learning process is peaceful and smooth, read a detailed history of quantum theory if you want to see a real flame war.

Anyone who wants to take my facts, study them, validate them, and write a better article to replace it, by all means.

But don't delete it after 12 minutes. It isn't a TV show, you will have to think and examine to understand what I put out there, not be a couch potato with a channel changer in your hand.

I have not time now, but my next step when I get the time is to take what I wrote to the experienced Wiki-ites and work with it until we get it right.

---John Sellers [personal info]

PS how is it solution? Microsoft can not contradict what I said, if they do, they would be mistaken...what is more they know better. What I said is well supported by the proof I have included as screen shots.

Hi John, the time you took to make this contribution is appreciated, really it is, but most of it probably doesn't have place in a Wikipedia article. This is because we have a policy on Wikipedia:No original research. In a nutshell, our responsibility as Wikipedians is to write about things that other Wikipedia:Reliable sources have already reported on. Accordingly, anything you sat down and figured out yourself isn't suitable for inclusion. If you have a look though those policy pages, as well as Wikipedia:Verifiability, you'll have a much better understanding of Wikipedia's aims and goals, and that in turn will help you contribute in a way that will have a lot more traction. -/- Warren 00:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

reply

Anyone who wants to take my facts, study them, validate them, and write a better article to replace it, by all means.

This is exactly my point. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such, all the content must be independently verifiable, without relying on original research - see policies WP:V and WP:NOR. I'm sure what you're saying is perfectly true - but it's not up to me to make a decision to include it if it doesn't fit the criteria that all content in the encyclopedia has to have. This is the kind of thing I'm sure there will be some non-trivial published sources for - WGA has made quite a stir on the web, as I'm sure you're aware. I don't have time to search for sources and citations right now either. I may do tomorrow if I have time.

I didn't delete it, I moved your content onto the talk page, as there was no way it could stay on the main page in its present form without compromising the principles of the encyclopedia. The huge images, in particular, were a problem.

I'm sure some of this will make it in in some form or other - it just takes attention from a few wikipedians better versed in the subject than myself. No more bongos 00:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Possible issue with WGA tool on Win98SE?

One users isolated problem doesn't help a general encyclopedia.
WGA isn't designed to run on Win9x. SchmuckyTheCat 15:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

OK Comments removed. ShakespeareFan00 21:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Meaning obscure

"Users who have automatic updates set to "Notify" and do not put a checkmark next to the WGA download, are not affected." I don't understand this. Can anyone elaborate? Kipholbeck 07:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is clear. Automatic updates settings gives the user the option to "notify" updates. That means that the user is automatically told when there are available updates, but the user then decides whether or not to download and install them. Where an updated version of wga is delivered in this way, the user has the option to deselect wga from what they are downloading and installing. 82.29.215.181 (talk) 10:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Need updated image

Judging by the latest IE installer and various other things, the WGA offical logo is JUST that starfish, so someone might want to get that image from their site somewhere and replace both current FUI images with that one. 68.39.174.238 03:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Win98SE

This article says that WGA just runs on XP, but this isn't true. When I downloaded the last directx, i needed to install WGA. I dont know if it runs like in XP, because it detected as a Genuine Product and i didn1t get any problems. WGA is not only designed to XP and Vista

It seems that the new logo removed the 'Ask For', however, it's updated. Hastin 09:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Software Update Installation Wizard display for "MICROSOFT WINDOWS GENUINE ADVANTAGE NOTIFICATIONS FOR MICROSOFT WINDOWS XP"

If you want to see the Software Update Installation Wizard display for "MICROSOFT WINDOWS GENUINE ADVANTAGE NOTIFICATIONS FOR MICROSOFT WINDOWS XP", you'll just have to install it yourself or go here.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


2007/07/12: Notifications not appearing in Microsoft Update or the Microsoft Update Catalog

It seems that, starting today, Notifications doesn't appear for me in Microsoft Update (not too unusual, since they've been known to disable it for certain locales or groups) or the Microsoft Update Catalog (okay, now that does raise eyebrows). Anyone know what's up? Is this news? Or is this just a temporary thing? --Code65536 21:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of NPOV tag

I have removed the NPOV tag because there is no discussion of the neutrality of this article on the talk page, even by the editor who put the tag up. Which leads me to believe that it is the opinion of one editor. It has been up for over two months. If anything, this article is concilliatory towards Microsoft. Maybe that was the point of the tag. In any event, I do not think there is enough bias to justify use of the tag. Editors are welcome to revert me if they can offer a good explanation for its continued use here. Nodekeeper 09:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it included in any service packs?

It's not included in Windows XP SP1 and XP SP2, but what about XP SP3 (currently in a public RC version 3264)? -79.179.148.235 (talk) 20:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Latest Release

Where are you getting the latest release information? 71.245.204.75 (talk) 02:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I've made a new XP Notifications image

So the old one can be deleted, I don't know how to do this - all I know is it wouldn't let me overwrite it. The old one was a PNG converted from a JPEG, the new one is a crisp PNG taken using the same Bliss background, and the newer "Royale" theme included with Windows XP Media Centre Edition. Nothing fancy, just a better image. --PlikPlok (talk) 13:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Windows 2000 WGA??

In this article it is said that WGA only applies to Windows XP and Vista, but according to Windows 2000 article, it is said that WGA does cover Windows 2000 to certain extent. Which one is the right one?--w_tanoto (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This has been fixed. The Windows 2000 article is correct, and it now reads "However, certain downloads and non-critical updates from the Download Center for Windows 2000 require validation." — Wenli (reply here) 05:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Google and Illegal Downloading?

Umm... why would someone post a sentence involving Warez downloads and using Google to download Windows XP illegally? Edit fixed.

Linuxgeek007 (talk) 01:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Critical updates

Microsoft currently runs a WGA check before scanning for updates. You cannot even see the list of updates, critical or otherwise, much less download them, without WGA verification. For XP service pack 3 in particular, even if you obtain the installer from another source (e.g. copy from a friend), the file itself will perform a WGA check before installing. The article alludes to being able to get critical updates even on WGA failed installs, but this is not true or is no longer true. 69.111.167.14 (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's still true that turning on automatic updates gets critical updates to your WGA failed computer. The reason why would be as originally with this give away - to minimize the number of boxes being zombied, in other words, shrink the recruit candidate base for the bot-nets. WGA and WGA Notifications are related but different things. Notifications keeps changing. As of August, 2008, the MS XP WGAN blog looks like this: http://blogs.msdn.com/wga/archive/2008/08/26/update-to-wga-notifications-for-windows-xp-professional.aspx There is new behavior, including a new persistent display. - 12.226.24.113 (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

WGA in China: New alternative images

Here are two alternative images of WGA in China. Decide if better than incumbent image, and replace if so.

thumb|left|The effect of the implementation of WGA on Chinese language Windows Vista. This screenshot is from a pirated copy of Vista. thumb|right|The effect of the implementation of WGA on Chinese language Windows Vista. This screenshot is from a pirated copy of Windows XP Professional.

Regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 22:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

FAKE Releases of Windows Genuine Advantage Notifications (WGA) Tool

There are FAKE versions of Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) Notifications circulating the web. Please refer to this page for the latest version actually released by Microsoft :

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=f89b6508-bf26-4a5e-84eb-11c35a249d7a&displaylang=en

REAL LATEST VERSION : v1.8.31.9

BE CAREFUL ... Fake releases may corrupt/damage your system functionality.

SR. TECH. - MICROSOFT (2008-11-28 01:35 AM) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.128.218 (talk)

Oeratig Systems supported by WGA

I just want to point out that according to Microsoft, the Windows 2000 professional operating system is covered by WGA. The description in Wikipedia says that the operating system 2000 does not use WGA. I think this should be ammended. Christopher —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.187.30 (talk) 10:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Add javascript code fragment to WU web url?

The following was posted to the internet back in 2005:

Before pressing 'Custom' or 'Express' buttons paste this text to the address bar and press enter:

javascript:void(window.g_sDisableWGACheck='all')

It turns off the trigger for the key check.

Does anyone know if it still works?

When WU wants you to download and install WGA before it lets you download any new updates, is there any way to fake around this and get to the update list without installing WGA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.130.47 (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Windows_Genuine_Advantage/Archive_1&oldid=1155593255"