Well it would depend on the company, but as many of you know Adobe CS2 recently had its activation servers pulled from the internet. Instead of leaving there members in the dark, adobe uploaded a universal non-internet activation version on there website along with some keys there users can use.

But to be fair, I doubt 10 years from now Microsoft will do anything if they pull the servers,, there are other "alternative" methods to activate windows that retro enthusiasts will use 😀, in my eyes its no different than seeking game passwords online due to your original manuals ink fading over time to the extent that you cant read it.

SKARDAVNELNATE wrote:

TheMAN wrote:

does it really matter?

Yes, it does. Consumers take a risk when buying a product. They shouldn't be met with suspicion or required to jump through hoops In order to use that product. Software developers produce a commodity yet they tie the commodity to a service. Normally I oppose making new laws but maybe there needs to be some form of consumer protection revision that ensures software survival after support from the developer is no longer viable.

Yeah, riiiiiiiight...and over the years software developers NEVER had ANY problems with people illegally copying and distributing their products so they have no reason at all for wanting to put a stop to that. 🙄

The users brought the suspicion on themselves by engaging in rampant piracy whenever something new hits the store shelves. Most new games these days, you can get on torrents before they are posted for sale to the Steam servers.

sliderider wrote:

Yeah, riiiiiiiight...and over the years software developers NEVER had ANY problems with people illegally copying and distributing their products so they have no reason at all for wanting to put a stop to that. 🙄

The users brought the suspicion on themselves by engaging in rampant piracy whenever something new hits the store shelves.

So all customers should be treated alike due to a few that upload?
There's no proof that someone who downloads was ever going to purchase if sharing wasn't an option.
What about those that wouldn't have considered a program when in a store but later make a purchase after using one that was shared?
Piracy doesn't hurt sales. It helps them.

sliderider wrote:

Most new games these days, you can get on torrents before they are posted for sale to the Steam servers.

Which side are you arguing, now? Clearly the methods used to combat piracy are failing to do so while turning customers away from their product.

SKARDAVNELNATE wrote:

TheMAN wrote:

does it really matter?

Yes, it does. Consumers take a risk when buying a product. They shouldn't be met with suspicion or required to jump through hoops In order to use that product. Software developers produce a commodity yet they tie the commodity to a service. Normally I oppose making new laws but maybe there needs to be some form of consumer protection revision that ensures software survival after support from the developer is no longer viable.

stop being an idealist and wake up to reality
if MS does pull the plug on the XP activation servers (after the extended support period next year), there's NOTHING you can do except for doing those workarounds, or worse, outright using a pirated key... does it matter then? No, because by that time they'll have shut down the Windows Update server just like what they did already with 98, ME, and 2K... and no because 1/2 the population would have moved on to Vista or 7 or 8 already because they got sick of their old POS or broken computers... the rest will be the ones using pirated Windows in 3rd world countries who don't know any better, then a drop in the bucket will be "if it ain't broke don't fix it" hold outs.... irrelevant to the whole big picture... MS shouldn't care, why should anyone?

if MS decides to be nice like what they did with Money 2008, they'll release a version that requires no key or activation, but I seriously doubt this will happen because this will enroach on their current Windows sales.... Windows and Office are their cash crop.... Money went through a downward spiral till they discontinued the product after their 2008 version, so putting out a non-activation version was just a courtesy for users so that they could still continue to use their discontinued product.... Windows won't get discontinued, new versions will keep getting released... you're a fool if you think MS will be nice and go out of their way to let you keep using your beloved old version

want to keep using an old Windows? Fine. Just don't expect MS to be nice about it!

From what I understand, both 2000 and XP are the similar with multicore limits. Both limit sockets with any cores. So PRO will do 2 sockets, so I assume up to 8 cores, Server will do 4 sockets with up to 16 cores. I'm typing in 2000 with 4 cores now. I hear and will see soon that Home does 1 socket including a quad core.
I'm trying to make a pre-activated CD now; installed, activated, re-image with wpa files, we'll see.

Not sure what it has to do with this topic but no they are not. The socket differentiation came only with XP as did hyper-threading. Win2000 Professional supports up to 2 cores, Server up to 4. XP does up to 32 cores with 1 socket on Home, 2 on Professional. XP has better scheduling though.

SKARDAVNELNATE wrote:

So all customers should be treated alike due to a few that upload? There's no proof that someone who downloads was ever going to […]
Show full quote

sliderider wrote:

Yeah, riiiiiiiight...and over the years software developers NEVER had ANY problems with people illegally copying and distributing their products so they have no reason at all for wanting to put a stop to that. 🙄

The users brought the suspicion on themselves by engaging in rampant piracy whenever something new hits the store shelves.

So all customers should be treated alike due to a few that upload?
There's no proof that someone who downloads was ever going to purchase if sharing wasn't an option.
What about those that wouldn't have considered a program when in a store but later make a purchase after using one that was shared?
Piracy doesn't hurt sales. It helps them.

sliderider wrote:

Most new games these days, you can get on torrents before they are posted for sale to the Steam servers.

Which side are you arguing, now? Clearly the methods used to combat piracy are failing to do so while turning customers away from their product.

I haven't changed sides, merely emphasizing how bad things have gotten when leaked versions of games are made available for free download before they even go on sale.

And the tired old "try before you buy" argument doesn't hold up, either. Let's take films as an example. If I am not sure whether I would enjoy a particular new film, does that entitle me to download it and watch it first before paying for a ticket at the theater? After having watched the film, why on Earth would I then go down to the theater and pay money to watch it again? Do you see yet how downloads really DO take away legitimate sales?

I think piracy is not so simple and no generalization is true other than the frequency of piracy says something about the perceived value to the products retail cost. Then there are different people, some who will pay high for everything and those who will rip everything. Neither are very representative. Back in the day there was no free software on a computer since it was multiple times the cost and the computer was the 'free' part. Nowadays the magic of monetizing by subscription is making hardware free again in some markets. For software guys the steady pay might be an expensive package they developed and maintain, especially through subscription, but the little app guys that hit big clean their clock at 99 cents. Even some good stuff that is donation only does very well. Overall, I say high piracy rates mean the product is overpriced. If XP, in the tiny retail market, still needed to be activated and logged and locked to one hardware package with some update allowance, and cost $10, W2k would have died out in 2003 and XP would still be selling. The OEM's pay a similar cost per unit and are the cash cow.
Personally, I have made donations, I have paid for a copy after I already had it, have paid Netflix to forward the royalty fees on the movies I ripped and viewed where there is no mailman or internet... and subscription fees are akin to welfare... and movies? Oh my, srcew whatever I paid to see Gerry, I want my 90 minutes back.

sliderider wrote:

I haven't changed sides, merely emphasizing how bad things have gotten when leaked versions of games are made available for free download before they even go on sale.

Without a reason as to why that's a bad thing I don't accept that it is. Remember my argument is that nothing is being deprived and no money is being lost. Publishers think that every pirated copy is 1 sale they didn't make but I say a pirated copy is 1 consumer that wasn't going to buy that game anyway, and may have even changed their mind after playing it.

sliderider wrote:

Do you see yet how downloads really DO take away legitimate sales?

No, I don't. There is a big difference between gaming and movies meaning that these are pirated for different reasons. See "The Joys of Physical Media" topic where I already rebutted some of your arguments. That topic alone stands as testament to one difference.

CwF wrote:

I think piracy is not so simple and no generalization is true other than the frequency of piracy says something about the perceived value to the products retail cost. Then there are different people, some who will pay high for everything and those who will rip everything.

Very much agreed. To add to what I'm saying above let's say there are three types of gamers in regard to piracy.

1) Those who will pay high for everything. They have the resources and will buy anything the industry puts out regardless of intrusive DRM, stripped out DLC, or micro-transactions. No sales are lost due to piracy because they would never turn to it.

2) Those who will rip everything. Perhaps they don't have the resources to indulge in their favorite hobby. Maybe getting away with something is their favorite hobby. Either way, no sales are lost since they were never going to buy it.

3) The middle ground. They'll buy a game when it suites them. They might have the resources only occasionally and so have to be careful how it's spent lest they regret it. There may be business practices that they find offensive as a previously loyal consumer. Perhaps they feel the quality of the product just isn't what it use to be. So they turn to piracy to supplement what they can't or won't spend money on. No sales are lost because they already decided not to buy the game, however a sale may have been made if they then changed their mind once they played it.

Publishers think the majority of gamers fall into category 1 or 2. They think they can convert pirates into loyal customers without considering the reason they turned to piracy. Because of this they take greedy, nearsighted steps which only drives their loyal customers away.

I say the majority falls into category 3. If I'm overlooking anything, over simplifying things, or just plain missing the point as to where these sales are being lost please point it out.

Piracy has always been a major problem for software, but it changes nothing about the basic issue.
People have purchased a Windows XP license, and they have a right to keep using it. Nobody loses their right to use XP just because Microsoft wishes it to be so.
If maintaining XP activations is no longer convenient for Microsoft, then they'll have to find a solution for the problem they created for themselves. Denying activations would amount to theft of a legally purchased license. Allowing people to keep the product they have purchased isn't "nice", it's their legal and professional obligation.

shamino wrote:

Piracy has always been a major problem for software, but it changes nothing about the basic issue.
People have purchased a Windows XP license, and they have a right to keep using it. Nobody loses their right to use XP just because Microsoft wishes it to be so.
If maintaining XP activations is no longer convenient for Microsoft, then they'll have to find a solution for the problem they created for themselves. Denying activations would amount to theft of a legally purchased license. Allowing people to keep the product they have purchased isn't "nice", it's their legal and professional obligation.

And there's plenty of games with an online multi-player component that I'd like to keep playing but can't because the game servers no longer exist, not because the company went out of business but because they decided they didn't have to support them anymore because they were too old. Should I sue for my right to continue playing the games? Shouldn't I be allowed to continue playing the games forever as long as I have a legally obtained copy that still functions? Aren't the game companies walking away from thier "legal and professional obligation" as you put it? There comes a point where supporting old products is no longer feasible simply because there aren't enough users left to warrant it. That's why Microsoft has always had limited support cycles for their products. XP was a special case due to the public's overwhelming rejection of Vista but we all knew XP support would end one day in spite of that. They couldn't stay in business if they were legally required to provide support indefinitely. It would be cheaper for them in the long term just to buy back all the old copies of the software that still exist so they don't have to support them anymore.

very hard to come to any conclusion with any stats. but thinking about it a bit more...

microsoft will weigh the pros and cons of stopping xp activation. they could just void all existing licences that have never been activated, probably without any viable legal challenge. after all, the world has known xp was not going to be supported/etc. the questionmark is over continuing to reactivate old licences.

the existing commercial/Govt user base is shifting. even my monolithic employer [100k employees, only got sp3 abut a year ago] is moving to 7 this year. yeah 7 not 8 🤣.

once the commercial/Govt sectors finally drop xp, microsoft's decision on whether to kill off xp re-activation will just be down to how much flak they might get from doing so from consumers.

but new boxes have not shifted with xp [outside commercial/govt] for years. pc sales are down [though people argue over the stats]. tablets are taking over. the younger generation [who more actively game] mostly use steam and xbox live, and dosbox. They are perfectly happy to shift from what they consider to be crappy XP with its 4gb memory limit and dx9.

its not clear whether there is going to be much of a population of xp users left, and if it's just a few users running old hardware microsoft could just switch off [some fuss from consumers, but probably easily handled by cheap upgrades to 8 ie £25 a pop offers] or not [not much cost to let reactivation continue a few more years, though no commercial gain from doing so].

having said all that, the simplest solution would surely be for microsoft to issue an SP4 which takes out the need for activation. that way they can wash their hands of xp without having any activation issues, people can continue to use their unsupported software if they must. but with hardware changing and directx moving on, it won't be long before nobody [significant] cares about xp anyway.

It's annoying for those of us who like to keep old boxes running, but that's about it.

sliderider wrote:

There comes a point where supporting old products is no longer feasible simply because there aren't enough users left to warrant it.

They don't have to -support- anything. Their obligation is simply to hand over the key to the product I paid for and leave it in my hands. They wanted to post a security guard at the entrance when it was convenient, fine. At some point they don't want to bother with that anymore - fine, that's their business. That means the guard goes home and leaves us with the key to what we bought.
GM doesn't support my car anymore. But as much as I'm sure they wish it would be "upgraded", I don't have to mail back the key.

Online multiplayer games are much different because they actively depend on the server to actually play the game. WinXP doesn't depend on anything from Microsoft in order to function. The one-time activation is just an artificial mechanism that gives them a chance to detect piracy. If they don't want to detect XP piracy anymore, they don't have to. Just unlock the door before they leave.

I'm actually not fond of multiplayer games partly for the reason you stated. But at least in that case the support issue is real, not an artificial excuse to block people from using it.

ratfink wrote:

the simplest solution would surely be for microsoft to issue an SP4 which takes out the need for activation. that way they can wash their hands of xp without having any activation issues, people can continue to use their unsupported software

That's all they need to do. It doesn't even have to be a full service pack, though that would be nice I don't expect them to go that far. Just an activation patch is all that's required.

If patching the activation is too much bother for them, then they shouldn't have instituted the system in the first place. It's not an unreasonable expectation.

ratfink wrote:

very hard to come to any conclusion with any stats. but thinking about it a bit more... […]
Show full quote

very hard to come to any conclusion with any stats. but thinking about it a bit more...

microsoft will weigh the pros and cons of stopping xp activation. they could just void all existing licences that have never been activated, probably without any viable legal challenge. after all, the world has known xp was not going to be supported/etc. the questionmark is over continuing to reactivate old licences.

the existing commercial/Govt user base is shifting. even my monolithic employer [100k employees, only got sp3 abut a year ago] is moving to 7 this year. yeah 7 not 8 🤣.

once the commercial/Govt sectors finally drop xp, microsoft's decision on whether to kill off xp re-activation will just be down to how much flak they might get from doing so from consumers.

but new boxes have not shifted with xp [outside commercial/govt] for years. pc sales are down [though people argue over the stats]. tablets are taking over. the younger generation [who more actively game] mostly use steam and xbox live, and dosbox. They are perfectly happy to shift from what they consider to be crappy XP with its 4gb memory limit and dx9.

its not clear whether there is going to be much of a population of xp users left, and if it's just a few users running old hardware microsoft could just switch off [some fuss from consumers, but probably easily handled by cheap upgrades to 8 ie £25 a pop offers] or not [not much cost to let reactivation continue a few more years, though no commercial gain from doing so].

having said all that, the simplest solution would surely be for microsoft to issue an SP4 which takes out the need for activation. that way they can wash their hands of xp without having any activation issues, people can continue to use their unsupported software if they must. but with hardware changing and directx moving on, it won't be long before nobody [significant] cares about xp anyway.

It's annoying for those of us who like to keep old boxes running, but that's about it.

Volume licensing customers do not activate their XPs the same way retail or PC builder OEM licenses do... they use a "corporate edition" key and they bypass MS's activation servers completely, they don't even phone home to anything at all... people who have legit licenses for these will never have issues activating their ancient version of XP once support ends and/or if MS shit cans the activation servers for XP, they just won't get Windows Updates at all.... the nature of these keys is why XP have been so actively pirated until MS blacklisted a whole bunch of VLK keys and reissued ones for legit customers

anyone can use a VLK key if they want, the legality of this is certainly dubious unless you have a real legit reason why you can and are using the key from a certain company you work for... in other words, in most cases when you use this key, you are pirating

the fact that piracy using a VLK key was so easy with XP is why MS changed the way Vista Business/7 Pro and Vista/7 Enterprise activates using a VLK key... instead of talking to MS, Windows phones home to your corporate office... but it didn't deter pirates anyway because people figured a way around this as well as creating a certain famous "loader" program that activates 7 or Vista... I'll let your imagination to fill in the blanks

don't want your Windows to phone home to MS? Don't use a retail or PC builder key... use an OEM manufacturer key... perfectly legal if you bought a brand name PC and it has the COA sticker on the case... as I already said, this workaround works... why are you people still continue to cry over a possible inevitability of XP activation servers going away? Just activate it this way and it's not only legit, it won't phone home to MS at all... built your own PC? then you're on your own, and as I said, there's multiple ways to go at this... use a retail or OEM PC builder key and hope to god MS doesn't shut down the activation servers, take your chances pirating using a VLK key, or figure out a way get OEM SLP activation to work.... the latter two are certainly legally questionable if you're interpreting the EULA strictly... you're on your own as I said!

most of us are not wanting to hunt down some specific kind of key and might not know one if it hit them in the face anyway.

gulikoza wrote:

AFAIK OEM versions will only activate 3 times. If the key is used and the machine won't activate, you'll have to call MS and explain to them how you got it 😀

now adays you don't even have to go that far, just ask them to reset the key and your done.

shamino wrote:

They don't have to -support- anything. Their obligation is simply to hand over the key to the product I paid for and leave it i […]
Show full quote

sliderider wrote:

There comes a point where supporting old products is no longer feasible simply because there aren't enough users left to warrant it.

They don't have to -support- anything. Their obligation is simply to hand over the key to the product I paid for and leave it in my hands. They wanted to post a security guard at the entrance when it was convenient, fine. At some point they don't want to bother with that anymore - fine, that's their business. That means the guard goes home and leaves us with the key to what we bought.
GM doesn't support my car anymore. But as much as I'm sure they wish it would be "upgraded", I don't have to mail back the key.

Online multiplayer games are much different because they actively depend on the server to actually play the game. WinXP doesn't depend on anything from Microsoft in order to function. The one-time activation is just an artificial mechanism that gives them a chance to detect piracy. If they don't want to detect XP piracy anymore, they don't have to. Just unlock the door before they leave.

I'm actually not fond of multiplayer games partly for the reason you stated. But at least in that case the support issue is real, not an artificial excuse to block people from using it.

ratfink wrote:

the simplest solution would surely be for microsoft to issue an SP4 which takes out the need for activation. that way they can wash their hands of xp without having any activation issues, people can continue to use their unsupported software

That's all they need to do. It doesn't even have to be a full service pack, though that would be nice I don't expect them to go that far. Just an activation patch is all that's required.

If patching the activation is too much bother for them, then they shouldn't have instituted the system in the first place. It's not an unreasonable expectation.

It''s not in Microsoft's financial interest to keep allowing new activations/reactivations of XP not only because they would take time away from support staff that could be better used for other issues with newer products but because it potentially hurts sales of the latest version of Windows. There won't be only vintage hardware enthusiasts wanting to activate it, there will also be those who don't want to pay $200 for the latest version and will be happy to pay $50 for an unopened copy of XP on ebay instead and will make do without being able to run the latest features and the lack of security updates.