Talk:Windows Product Activation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a WikiProject devoted to maintaining and improving the informative value and quality of Wikipedia's many Microsoft Windows articles. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on WikiProject Microsoft Windows's importance scale. |
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)
[edit] 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)
-
