Windows XP, Anyone?

Going only as far as WINDOWS 2000 is our
recommendation. A major drawdack of WINDOWS
XP (so I have heard), is that each time it
needs to be reinstalled, you just can't do
it yourself, but must get a new authorization
number from MICROSOFT.
I know of one firm that specifically chose
not to offer WINDOWS XP on its computers because
of that - makes prototyping impossible.
 
A

Alex Pavloff

> Going only as far as WINDOWS 2000 is our
>recommendation. A major drawdack of WINDOWS
>XP (so I have heard), is that each time it
>needs to be reinstalled, you just can't do
>it yourself, but must get a new authorization
>number from MICROSOFT.

What you have heard is inaccurate.

Windows Product Activation requires that a PC running Windows XP to be "activated" within 10 days of installation before it shuts down. Replacing enough hardware components will also require a reactivation, which can be done over the internet or by calling Microsoft up.

> I know of one firm that specifically chose
>not to offer WINDOWS XP on its computers because
>of that - makes prototyping impossible.

If you don't need to activate, you have ten days before you system stays in its "activate me or I will do no more" mode. A similar system also exists for Office XP.

Alex Pavloff
Software Engineer
Eason Technology
 
M

Michael Griffin

On September 5, 2002, Alex Pavloff replied:
> What you have heard is inaccurate.
>
> Windows Product Activation requires that a PC running Windows XP to be
> "activated" within 10 days of installation before it shuts down.
> Replacing enough hardware components will also require a reactivation,
> which can be done over the internet or by calling Microsoft up.

Isn't that essentially what Mr. Ng said? You put things a bit more precisely, but the gist of it was there.

This WPA may not be a big problem in an office environment, but it sounds like a nasty can of worms on the production line (we've discussed this subject before). At this time I wouldn't be willing to touch it either for any applications I am familiar with. We have enough software problems with our PC systems as it is without adding any more.

Since the licensing policy for versions of XP without WPA doesn't allow you to transfer a license to a third party, there doesn't seem to be a good way for a small company to use these versions of XP either as part of a system which they would sell to a customer. The problems are legal, rather than technical.

You could of course simply ignore the license policy, but I would recommend looking for other solutions before doing that. Microsoft may eventually change their licence policy to deal with this problem, but I don't see why they would bother. The industrial market is too small to mattered to them.

We discussed this problem a while ago, and at the time nobody had a solution. If anyone has come up with one since, I am sure quite a few people would appreciate hearing about it.

************************
Michael Griffin
London, Ont. Canada
************************
 
A
Mr Griffin wrote:
> Isn't that essentially what Mr. Ng said? You put things a bit more
>precisely, but the gist of it was there.

Mr Ng said prototyping was impossible. In fact, prototyping is the one thing that will work -- as you point out, running a line off Windows XP is
something completely different for both technical and licensing issues.

Alex Pavloff
Software Engineer
Eason Technology
 
Thomas Ng:
> >A major drawdack of WINDOWS XP (so I have heard), is that each time
> it needs to be reinstalled, you just can't do it yourself, but must
> get a new authorization number from MICROSOFT.

Alex Pavloff:
> What you have heard is inaccurate.

> Windows Product Activation requires that a PC running Windows XP to be
> "activated" within 10 days of installation before it shuts down.

Which is what he said. You need help from MS. Having 10 days grace is nice, but OTOH taking advantage of it means a separate field trip.

Jiri
 
V

Vladimir E. Zyubin

Hello List,

And I have heard the next bad news is -- according to the new version of EULA, MS has rights to change the program codes via internet without any request and any notice...

So, XP is absolutely unecceptable for automation tasks. Ever HMI-applications should be migrated away from this ugly platform.

--
Best regards,
Vladimir mailto:[email protected]
 
R

Ranjan Acharya

I still do not see an easy solution to when we (for example) make up ten clients, before we just made one machine work and used Ghost or DriveImage
to the other 9. We then shipped them off without even cracking the plastic wrap on nine out of ten of the NT or 2000 packages.

Now because of the hardware hash, we have to authorise each system.

The customer cannot just use our handy restore CD in the middle of the night. They have to call us in. Great news.

RA
 
B

Brian Martinicky

Hi Ranjan,
Don't forget about Volume License versions of XP. If you plan an deploying more than 5 XP systems over time, a single volume license key can be used to activate multiple VL versions of XP. In this case, the "normal" activation mechanism discussed to date is not relevant.

Regards,
Brian Martinicky
Manager, Software Development
Automation Intellegence, Inc.
Duluth, GA USA
 
C
I only wish that people would consider this unacceptable. But nothing can possibly interfere with using whatever MS puts in a box no matter what the consequences. Everybody will simply bend
over and take it. And it will be decreed that this is not only acceptable for automation, but its a very good thing! And shortly thereafter, the trade rags will be full of glossy ads shilling it as a feature. It'll be sold to management, of course. All they need is a sharp bussword for it. I base this on past experience with rationalizing the world's least reliable series of operating systems as ideal for automation. And the touting of Microsoft's
exemplary security as being essential for automation. Propa^h^h^h^h^hMarketing can completely spin this around in the minds of nearly everyone with excellent success. Almost 95% success.

Why else would MS be the only platform offered or supported?

Regards

cww
 
M

Michael Griffin

What is even worse is when you have a spare removable hard drive made up, ready to plug into any of several different identical machines (this is much quicker than a restore CD). As far as Windows XP is concerned, you've changed all the hardware.

Or another case is when you have to do a software upgrade to the application by swapping the removable hard drive. The equipment is simply not available for the time required to perform an installation on line. How do you "lock" the software to the hardware when the hardware isn't available to you during installation?

The basic problem seems to be that the authorisation system is intended for systems with lower levels of reliability and availability than is typically required in industry. This doesn't mean the system is *bad* in itself, it's just that it was never intended for use outside of home entertainment or small business (larger businesses have alternative licenses available to
them). The "problem" may be not so much with the software, as it is with people who are trying to use it for something it is unsuitable for.

The most serious problems are not with computers used to run engineering software (e.g. PLC programming software, CAD, etc.). These are similar to office applications.
Rather, the most serious problem is with computers which will form part of the finished system (test systems, MMI systems, SCADA, soft logic systems, etc.). These systems require higher degrees of reliability.
However, these systems typically run one (or a few) specialised, dedicated applications. This narrower scope makes it somewhat more feasible to try to avoid the WPA altogether by using alternative operating systems.

It is certainly something to think about.

************************
Michael Griffin
London, Ont. Canada
************************
 
Vladimir E. Zyubin:
> > And I have heard the next bad news is -- according to the new
> > version of EULA, MS has rights to change the program codes via
> > internet without any request and any notice...

Mark Hill:
> Your statement is partially correct, but you have the option of
> turning off this "Windows Update" feature.

Except Vladimir was not talking about "Windows Update" - which is fine - but about the Windows EULA, at least some versions of which purport to
grant Microsoft the right to provide upgrades with no further consent and little further notice. The EULA cannot be turned off as you suggest.

"http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/25956.html":http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/25956.html (Media Player security patch)

"http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/26517.html":http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/26517.html (XP SP1, 2000 SP3)


Jiri
--
Jiri Baum <[email protected]> http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jirib
MAT LinuxPLC project --- http://mat.sf.net --- Machine Automation Tools
 
V

Vladimir E. Zyubin

Hello Mark,

Maybe... till the next update or just a service-pack of the Windows eliminates the feature.

IMO, every homo sapiens ought to leave the platform... A-S-A-P. The direction MS leads the community is clear enough... Orwell wrote the story.

BTW, is it correct, in November we will have to say good bye to Win 2000?

--
Best regards,
Vladimir mailto:[email protected]
 
P

Peter Whalley

Hi All,

This may sound like a problem but consider it from the point of view of the average user.

They simply want their software to be updated automatically without having to think about it. They want security patches automatically installed as soon as they become available. Yes it would be nice if Microsoft produced perfect software that didn't need patches but we live in the real world and that's not going to happen. (BTW Redhat issue patches to Linux all the time
and have a fairly automated automatic update installation system to handle them.)

Automated updates are in the best interests of the average user, Microsoft, IT administrators and the world in general. It's in everybodies best interests for Internet connected computers to have the latest security patches installed as soon as they are released and with a minimum of trouble.

So Microsoft (like other companies such as AOL and Symantec) incorporate automatic update software. But what happens when one of their millions of customers doesn't like it and decides to sue them for updating the software without authorisation. They can point to the EUA and say it was part of agreeing to use the software. It keeps their lawyers (and their shareholders) happy.

IA users either don't connect their systems to the Internet, disable the feature or live with it. I can't see Microsoft taking you to court for
failing to allow them to update the software automatically.

Regards

Peter Whalley
Magenta Communications Pty Ltd
Melbourne, VIC, Australia

e-mail: peter*no-spam*@magentacomm.com.au
delete *no-spam* before sending
 
R

Ranjan Acharya

Unfortunately, this excellent suggestion does not typically work. We get most boxes from customers the with individual licences already activated or
at least waiting for activation (the good old hologram sticker on the side of the box has the licence number on it). We then have to individually set up each machine.

All our large customers have some sort of leasing PC / Server supplier even for their shop floor systems. We don't supply the boxes or OSs anymore. We supply the added value. We are still stuck with more work to get that added
value.

RA
 
M

Michael Griffin

On September 16, 2002 12:45 pm, Brian Martinicky wrote:
<clip>
> Hi Ranjan,
> Don't forget about Volume License versions of XP. If you plan an
> deploying more than 5 XP systems over time, a single volume license key
> can be used to activate multiple VL versions of XP. In this case, the
> "normal" activation mechanism discussed to date is not relevant.
<clip>

This does not help the problem pointed out by Mr. Acharya. I do not believe that what you have suggested is permitted under Microsoft's licensing policy. This may therefor be illegal and be considered software piracy.

When I last investigated this matter, the volume license may only be applied to PCs which remain in the possession of the company which purchased the license. You are not permitted to sell these PCs to someone else, either alone or as part of a system.
The "volume license" is just a lower volume version of the "corporate license", which is the version which large companies purchase from Microsoft for computers which are used within the same company. It essentially has no
copy protection system. This is the basis of a number of the "pirate" versions of Windows XP which are widely available.

For PCs which are to be sold to a customer by a small integrator as part of a system, I don't believe there is any legal alternative to the WPA if you intend to use Windows XP. If the WPA looks to be unsuitable for what you want to do, then you may need to consider using another operating system.

************************
Michael Griffin
London, Ont. Canada
************************
 
B
I wonder if it would be possible to run RSView, Wonderware, or IFix on a Lindows platform????

Bob Peterson
 
Jiri Baum said:
>>Except Vladimir was not talking about "Windows Update" -
>>which is fine - but about the Windows EULA, at least some
>>versions of which purport to grant Microsoft the right to
>>provide upgrades with no further consent and little further
>>notice. The EULA cannot be turned off as you suggest.
>>
>>http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/25956.html
>>(Media Player security patch)
>>
>>http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/26517.html
>>(XP SP1, 2000 SP3)

I find it rather humorous that the Microsoft bashers always seem to reference the Register, as if it were a reputable, unbias news source. Such references do nothing but damage any credibility there may be to your argument.

Vladimir E. Zyubin said:
>> And I have heard the next bad news is -- according to the new
>> version of EULA, MS has rights to change the program codes via
>> internet without any request and any notice...

The actual text of this part of the the Windows XP SP1 EULA is:

* Internet-Based Services Components. The SOFTWARE contains
components that enable and facilitate the use of certain
Internet-based services. You acknowledge and agree that
MS, Microsoft Corporation or their subsidiaries may
automatically check the version of the SOFTWARE and/or
its components that you are utilizing and may provide
upgrades or supplements to the SOFTWARE that may be
automatically downloaded to your COMPUTER.

To hear from BOTH sides of the story, read the following article:

"http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/02/02/11/020211opfoster.xml":http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/02/02/11/020211opfoster.xml
(note, a credible news source)

Microsoft's response to the criticism is down 7 or 8 paragraphs. Basically the Microsoft response is that they are legally required to provide notification, since users have the -option- of having all updates downloaded and applied automatically. They also have the option to disable automatic updates.

My take is, if you're that worried about auto-update or Microsoft accessing your computer then don't use it. Most of you who responded on this thread are already using Linux anyway...

Jeff
 
Anthropology, literature, commerce, computer science, and your opinion all in one short sentence. You are my leader !

Jay Kirsch
 
Top