In the midst of a post about Microsoft’s new viral marketing campaign for Windows Vista (which I wrote about last night), Dwight Silverman tosses off this aside:
Whether [the Demetri Martin campaign] will be enough to get consumers to pony up the bucks for a Vista upgrade, and once they have it, make them forget such irritants as the User Account Control and the Software Protection Program, remains to be seen.
I just want to go on the record here with my thoughts that these two features should not be mentioned in the same breath. UAC is without a doubt a feature that was designed to provide a benefit to Windows users. We can quibble about the way it works, but not about the goals behind it.
SPP, on the other hand, is the successor to Windows Genuine Advantage. Both initiatives have in common a reliance on Orwellian language that appears to be in the customer’s benefit but is actually a horrible inconvenience and potentially a nightmare. Despite Microsoft’s attempts to spin the new program, there’s no advantage for the Windows customer, and the only thing being protected is Microsoft’s revenue stream.
By definition, security measures like UAC are inconvenient. But SPP goes beyond being an irritant.
OK, rant over. Sorry to pick on a single offhand remark, Dwight.
Ed Bott 
“the only thing being protected is Microsoft’s revenue stream”
Piracy of Windows in some countries is so bad that legitimate system builders simply can’t compete with the ones who pirate Windows. SPP will help protect them as well. And what’s wrong with Microsoft trying to stop piracy of it’s own software in the first place?
SPP will never even be seen by legitimate Windows users except when they activate the product, which has been made eaier than it was with XP.
Fine. If Microsoft wants to position this as protection for its resellers and itself, I have no problem with that. But claiming that WGA or SPP is good for Windows users is just wrong.
I’ve documented many examples of WGA failures, where innocent users have had to go through cumbersome repair procedures because the anti-piracy checks failed. The support options are weak. And don’t tell me I’m being “advantaged” by having access to updates and security features taken away.
I have no problem with the concept of WGA. I have giant issues with the honesty of its presentation and the quality of support for innocent Windows users.
The only justification I can see for WGA being “good” for the consumer in the long run is that it might eventually allow Microsoft to lower … prices … or … naah.
Ed,
Actually, it was more than offhand. While you and I can appreciate UAC (note that the reference links to an entry that shows I was glad it was there), I really do think that it’s going to irritate a LOT of average users. It’s there for their own good, yes, but I don’t think they’ll like it. Think of UAC as Microsoft’s version of broccoli.
Dwight.
The more I learn of Vista, the more I want to wait for the next Windows upgrade, skipping this monster altogether. There was a recent poll taken here where only ONE business was planning to upgrade to Vista, and not a single one had less than 20 employees. I hope I’m wrong, but I think both Office 2007 and Vista are DOA for the business class, along with most users who are not financially set to upgrade their systems yet.