WGA: When a false positive isnt a False Positive July 24, 2006Posted by rjdohnert in Opinions, Tech News.
Alex Kochis, a licensing manager on the WGA team, put up a blog entry on what is a false positive and how a lot of the failures in fact NONE of the failures are a false positive. He goes along to explain many of these people just dont want to believe they are using pirated software.
My Take; Ok, I didnt post on this when it came out because basically I wanted time to cool off on it. Alex is wrong, for example I know of three instances where it was a false positive. On one of those I upgraded a friends computer to XP Pro from 2000 Pro using a shrink wrapped copy of XP bought at the local CompUSA, the two others were OEM shipped OS’s that failed validation. On all three it took me awhile on the phone to get it straightened out. So I think the article is flawed because I know of others who had false positives as well. Alex and his team are wrong that they investigate all reports of false positives because on the three I reported, never once did Microsoft contact me or ask to repro the problem. This is called damage control for the two class action lawsuits that are in place. How effective is WGA? not very. All their incentive programs to get genuine are already cracked and placed on various sites and P2P’s and the real hardcore pirates are not suffering at all. WGA is more of an annoyance than a solution and while its helping Microsoft nail small 2 bit companies that serve as "computer repair" its not really making a hell whole lot of dent in the bigger problem. If MS turns this into a kill switch they are just screwing themselves because pirates will have it figured out in a little while after its done.