Microsoft Licensing: The Pain It Keeps On Rolling

I continued to set up the Dell machine from the other day. I started out my day at the office where I updated my supervisor on the installation, saying that the laptop couldn't be joined to the Active Directory domain because it was running Windows 7 Home, and apparently that ability is disabled in the home edition. I wasn't sure if he'd care because I thought the user was going to be using it primarily at home anyway.

"Nah," he said. "We have Windows 7 Professional and the licenses, just install that on it."

I sighed, packed up my shiny Windows 7 DVD (64 bit, since for some reason the home version of Windows 7 was 64 bit on that laptop with less than 4 gig of usable RAM...) and headed out to the office where I could work on that system.

I vaguely recall that Windows since Vista has been coming in a form where every version, and there are lots of them, of Windows is included on the install DVD. The different versions that cost you hundreds and hundreds of dollars between the lowliest, crappiest version to the least crippled version are all one in the same; they simply have functionality that is disabled or enabled depending on the license key you feed it.

Neat, eh?

Don't get me wrong with what I'm about to say. I personally hate using software that is crippled artificially. It was one of the reasons I initially moved to Linux; my desktop computer could act as a capable server, while Windows, despite being able to handle a modest workload, was throttled back in what it could handle simply because of a registry setting. Even though I never to my recollection was even maxing out the throttled limits I hated the idea that my system was crippled simply because of me not having more money.

At the same time, I understand and support that it is Microsoft's right to impose limits on their users, as we have to agree to the license in the first place and that license places these (irritatingly arbitrary) limits on the end user. That's why I moved to Linux instead of pirating Windows. It's their product. They dictate what can and can't be done with it.

That said, why is it that Microsoft seems to go out of their way to make a task as simple as installing our volume-licensed, legal copy of Windows 7 Professional over the default Windows 7 Home preinstalled on a Dell laptop?

Here's the thing; for the most part, choice is bad for ease of use. You give users choices, you make them think, you give them the opportunity to screw up. That counts against you in the ease of use department. Weird, isn't it?

Microsoft has outdone itself, going out of their way to make something as simple as licensing into a pain in the arse.

The DVD we have actually has two licenses printed on it. One is KMS and the other is MAK. KMS is their Key Management Service key, and MAK is their Multiple Activation Key. Two really long string of numbers and letters that belong to our business. The difference? The KMS key allows us to have an "in-house" server to handle activations more or less automatically, while the MAK key allows us to input the MAK key individually into systems that then call Microsoft over the Internet to activate. Both the MAK and KMS keys are types of Volume Keys.

Making sense so far?

The Dell laptop with Windows 7 Home apparently has a self-activated key already installed. I popped in the DVD with Windows 7 and told it to run Setup. Setup started chugging along, asking a couple questions, then  it got to the point where it asked if I wanted to upgrade or clean install. I said, upgrade! I already installed an antivirus and our full version of Office (after deleting some crappy trial version of Office that was on the system when we received it for configuration. Setup started looking at the drive and said, "Nope! We can't do that with this version of Windows! You have to run the Windows Anytime Upgrade from the start menu!"

Ah-ha! It does have all the versions of Windows, I just need to plug my key there!

I do a search, since the menu system in today's incarnations of Windows makes it damn near impossible to actually find anything now, for the Windows Anytime Upgrade utility. Run it, it asks for the key. I put in our MAK. It rejects it.

Apparently you need a special Windows Anytime Upgrade key in order to activate that function.

So now I have a licensed, pre-activated Home key, a MAK key, and a KMS key, and none of them do me a damn bit of good because I need a WAU key.

I swear, several times actually, and re-run the setup utility, this time telling it to nuke the C: drive and start over.

This time it worked. I had to spend most of the day reinstalling Windows (Professional, this time), reinstalling Office, reinstalling antivirus, and all the miscellaneous utilities that I had installed but wiped out in the full reinstall.

This wouldn't piss me off so much if I hadn't seen the alternative way to handle licensing. In Linux, there are no real restrictions. You may get a flash of the GPL license, but no key to enter, no restrictions on how you use the operating system (other than what the GPL enforces, which for most users is of no consequence).

On OS X, there are licensing restrictions, but Apple largely takes you at the honor system. Their attitude seems to be, if you put the operating system on hardware that's not ours and it doesn't work, you're screwed, buddy. Apple is largely a hardware company. They make money from their hardware and services. While they have restrictions on what you can and can't do with their software they don't go out of their way to make customers bend backwards while gargling Yankee Doodle Dandy on a unicycle in order to install their software on their hardware.

In the end it feels as if you buy their operating system just by having purchased the Mac. It doesn't bug you for software keys or activation. It just installs. The closest I've had to being locked out from an installer was trying to use a MacBook installer CD to reinstall OS X on an older system whose hard disk had failed. The install CD was keyed to work only with MacBooks, even though it was the version I had on the PowerMac before it died. I think I was still able to reinstall on the new hard disk by booting the Mac to Target Disk Mode and installing from there, as I recall.

No pestering. No nagging. Definitely no typing thirty-digit codes by hand. Maybe Apple just thinks it's not worth pissing off or frustrating customers for the possibility that someone will pirate their software. I had to take my mother-in-law's old G4 notebook in to an Apple store after the operating system became corrupt, and in the end they did a restore from a clean image. The guy at the Genius bar asked what version of OS X was on it.

How would I remember? I haven't looked at that system in probably two years. I can't remember what I wore two days ago, let alone what my mother in law had on her notebook. I guessed 10.4 judging from what I probably had on it when it became her system.

The Genius didn't ask for proof. Didn't hassle us at all. I think he was prepared to install whatever version I said (except Snow Leopard, since that didn't work on G4 Macs). Oh dear, they might lose $30 if I stole a newer version of their operating system! Instead, they made happy customers a priority over losing a drop in the bucket in change.

On the other hand I ended up losing most of a day of work because I needed to install from scratch Windows because I didn't have a particular type of key. Because the keys we paid lots of money for, legitimate keys, wouldn't work to do an in-place upgrade that would have taken ten minutes.

Thanks, Microsoft. One of the largest companies on the planet and you manage to make something as simple as installing your operating system a major hassle for a legitimate customer. Let me wave my "you're number one" sign at you without using my pointer finger. With both hands.

The Unpacking Experience: PC vs. Mac

I wrote that I recently purchased two 13-inch (mid-2010) MacBook Pros as gifts for myself and my wife. Late last week I also had to unbox and configure a Dell Inspiron 1750 (reviewed by PC Mag here and on Amazon here).

There is a significant difference in pricing between the two laptops and it wouldn't be fair to bitch about things that are primarily pricing differences. On the surface, there are several similarities that would make little difference to the end user; four gig of RAM on both, they both have webcams built in, they both have ports for external video (although the Mac isn't standard and requires a $30 adapter purchased separately), disc burners, etc. Most people, the vast majority, won't care about the manufacturer of the RAM, the brand of burner, or for the most part (unless it's really really bad) the resolution of the built-in camera.

The differences that really slapped me in the face were due to the differences between operating systems. This is something that is very much in the control of the manufacturers, regardless of the pricing of the laptops and the included hardware for the most part. Every time I cursed because I hit another roadblock to overcome was another "papercut" that makes me hate the hardware and software just a little more.

The Mac started up with a nice little flying welcome and music score before asking me some questions for basic setup. It took a few minutes before I was at the Finder desktop. Then I proceeded to run system updates; despite the system being introduced, literally, a week ago, it had two somewhat large updates (a little north of a hundred meg of downloads as I recall). Two reboots, done. My system had iWork already installed and I then proceeded to download some software that I planned to use (OpenOffice, FireFox, etc.) and all was well. I literally had a system ready for my personal use in about an hour or so, not counting the long process of copying my personal data from my old drives to the new laptop.

Not everything was gummy bears and rainbows. For my personal use, I wanted the laptop to run with encryption. The Mac uses FileVault for built-in encryption protection of your files, which is fine (aside from scary stories of the disk image now used for your home directory becoming corrupt; if it gets corrupted, you lose your whole home directory, not just a few files).

I also wanted backup protection. For the longest time I was very much a manual-protection person; I ran a script that synced my hand-created directory structure for personal data to external drives. I kept my photos in a folder structure I made to my own specifications, I kept my documents neatly organized, and if something happened I would just rebuild the computer from a clean install and copy the "files" folder from my external drive to the new computer. Fairly simple.

The Mac encourages...strongly...using a feature called Time Machine. It is really snazzy in that it creates hourly snapshots of your data to an external drive and has a neat almost Dr. Who-like flying-through-space interface for browsing your data as it changed over time. Just plug in an external drive and the Mac pops up asking if you'd like to use it as a Time Machine volume and from there handles the backup details in the background.

The problem? Use FileVault, and it will only back up your data at logoff for FileVaulted users. And you can't restore individual files from the Time Machine interface if you use FileVault, only the whole home directory. Ouch...

The process of enabling FileVault and Time Machine together on the Mac wasn't one hundred percent smooth either; the first time I enabled Time Machine, it said I was backing up about 150 gig of data (everything I read said this wasn't possible, as about 140 gig of it was my home directory and that wouldn't work until I logged off). Hmm...I think I'll log off to help it.

When you log off of a FileVaulted system the Mac will go through a process of recovering space on the disk; it's shrinking the disk image used in the background for storing your home directory data. Usually it doesn't take too long (unless you created and deleted a huge file during your session, I suppose.) Here, it did. It was going on ten or fifteen minutes before I made the decision to kill the machine from the power switch.

Reboot, came up, logged in without error (disk check revealed no problems). I did a reformat of the drive I was using for backup so I could start from scratch. Then I let Time Machine do its thing, this time staying logged in while it ran the first time. It told me it was backing up around 150 gig. Chugged along, and all of a sudden said it was done. Apparently it backed up the system and quit once it found the FileVault home directory image.

Logged out, and this time it recovered disk space in just a few seconds and the prompt changed to "backing up..." with a progress bar. Hours later (hey, it's USB...) it completed without issue. Definite user friendliness issues with how that was implemented, despite the somewhat scary warning that comes up when you turn on Time Machine with FileVault enabled.

Thinking back over the past week or two that's the only thing that really stood out as an operating system issue in migrating a brand new out-of-box system to my primary workhorse so far.

The work laptop running Windows 7 was in my experience far more frustrating.

Turned it on and the system asked me a few standard questions for configuration. Nod nod, yeah yeah, click click.

Next I was going to install our licensed copy of Microsoft Office. Usually it's pretty standard, but I had the slight irritation at having to remove the "trial copy" that was on the Windows 7 system first. I hate it when makers license "trials" of crap. It's a trap for users; they think they own the software or it came with the system, only to have it pop up errors a month down the road asking them to purchase it if they want to keep using it.

Then McAfee popped up with notices for updates and advertising. Another big peeve of mine related to what I just noted, because the user thinks they have antivirus protection when really it's a limited trial that will bug them to purchase further protection down the road. Users really don't think about these things and remain largely ignorant of the topic, right up until it stops protecting them. Errors pop up but the user just typically clicks through them until something goes really wrong, takes it to their resident geek, and he finds that the computer hasn't had updated virus definitions in six months and the user assumed it worked because they had McAfee (or another vendor's software) installed.

Uninstall uninstall uninstall.

Next I tried to put it on the domain. Guess what? Whoever purchased the laptop bought it with Windows 7 Home. Windows 7 Home won't connect to a domain. Another peeve of mine; artificially crippled software. I know it's a licensing issue and Microsoft has every right to do this with their software. It explained that this version of Windows is unable to join a domain. It's still a pain in the arse that I threw into my curse-pile after having to uninstall trialware crap.

I next had to uninstall a Dell wireless utility. On our network for reasons never fully explained the Dell utility for wireless interferes with the ability to connect to our Cisco wireless access points. Delete the utility, let Windows manage the connection, generally there's no problem after that (although now that it can't connect to the domain, I suppose the point is somewhat moot). I deleted the utility as we've done with countless Windows XP systems. Suddenly the system conveniently forgot it had a wireless card, period.

A big sigh and a dig through the box yielded a Dell Resource Disc with the drivers (ALREADY INSTALLED, it proclaimed). I inserted the disk and it prompted me to run a setup program first. Huh?

Okay...run install. Then it prompted me to remove the disc and reinsert it. Okay.

Then it popped up an error that I had the wrong volume in the drive.

Told it to continue twice and it suddenly decided it was okay. It ran a program that detected my hardware. Okay, I think, this is a turn for the better because now I don't need to guess the hardware!

It popped up with the Inspiron 1750 page and gave me an option of installing one of four or so drivers for the wireless card. Um...aren't you supposed to have detected it?!

I ran the first one. It told me that hardware wasn't installed.

Started running the installer to the second one. Suddenly Windows detected the wireless card, installed driver support (while the second installer hadn't run yet, it was just finished extracting files). So Windows now had the driver rediscovered and working, apparently, as it now had it in the device manager again.

That resource CD was a waste of time, and who knows what the installer littered on the drive?

The Mac doesn't have this issue because Apple hardware is tightly integrated with the operating system. If you buy OS X as an upgrade, it will have drivers to update all the hardware that it is known to support built right into the operating system.

What I don't understand is why Dell goes through the trouble of creating a separate utility that rides on top of or supersedes the Windows wireless utility. If it works fine for the purpose I'd far prefer having the built-in system over a third party utility. When I sit at the Mac, I know what to expect when I want to change settings, whether it's my system or a friend's system. On Windows, there's the Windows utility and there's a vendor utility or there's a manufacturer's utility (do I use the Dell configuration program? Windows? Intel?), and sometimes they work or they goof each other up.

Confusing, and definitely not user-friendly.

Not to mention that adding additional layers of software for redundant functions adds complexity, and with complexity comes more possibility for failure or bugs.

In the end I'd prefer that manufacturers stop adding trialware crap to entrap clueless users and stop adding software with redundant functionality. Unless you can genuinely add functionality to the system, I don't need a utility to join wireless networks when Windows has that function already built into Windows, and it's a real boon for the neighborhood geek when he doesn't need to know the ins and outs of each manufacturers crap utility just to join a laptop to a home router. Worse, I don't need to have two or more utilities that fight each other for access to the hardware and in the process can disable settings that were put into one program and now won't work when switching to the other program they ran intuitively (what do you mean I wasn't supposed to run the Windows network settings to join the network? Windows told me too, dammit!)

Overall these little papercuts in the process of configuring the system started having even minor things like the wallpaper, a series of upside-down boomboxes for reasons I haven't yet figured out, really grate on my nerves after the fourth reboot for updates and configuration settings.

I'm sure there are apologists that will point out that the circumstances were different between unboxing my system and unboxing the Dell. I'm aware of that. And I'm sure that there are good points that I'm overlooking. The point is that there was a lot more friction in just getting this Dell system configured for even basic use than I encountered on the Mac, and it was almost always due to problems and peeves that were under control of the manufacturer, right down to the gawdy and irritating upside down boombox wallpaper (c'mon...what the hell is that?? Look at the links at the beginning and see if you can see in the screenshot of the product for the reviews the wallpaper I'm referring to.)

There are people who will be anti-Apple no matter what. There is an "Apple tax" for their hardware; and it purchases less irritation for me. The hardware integration with the operating system simplifies things and standardizes the interface and removes the need for two different ways to turn on my wireless networking, and I don't have to go through and delete trialware from the computer to clean it up. It's not perfect by any means (why can't they use a networked Finder, like X? Or workspaces that allows me to rotate a cube or slide the screen for multiple desktops like I can with Ubuntu's desktop? Yes, I know it has Workspaces, but I always found the Ubuntu enhanced GUI features a little easier, if not glitchy at times, to work with, but maybe that's just habit speaking right now.)

What it boils down to is that I am an Apple fan because despite the money I have to spend on their hardware they generally treat the customers right. They remove friction, for the most part, in using the system. Their walled garden is expensive to get entrance into and has a few bees hovering around. It simply seems that the more I use Windows 7, OS X, and Ubuntu, the more I appreciate the differences and enhancements each offers.

To tell the truth though I'm still looking for the enhancements Windows 7 has over Ubuntu and OS X...anyone? Honestly?

I Hate VISTA!

There are many things that factor into user-friendliness and it absolutely floors me that something like Vista was released so many years after Apple's OS X, an operating system that has been hailed as a shining example of user friendliness. I can understand many of the shortcomings of Linux in this area...it's largely developed by geeks that like to do what they can to prevent the average user from entering the sacred halls of geekdom, and creating pain among users is a secret handshake in our meritocracy.

But when you're the dominant operating system vendor with millions of users and millions and millions of dollars in R&D, what excuse do you really have for releasing something that is actually several times more frustrating than anything a bunch of geeks have (laughingly) "designed"?

I had to work on a laptop (yes, that I previously had worked on with Vista Home Edition) that was reported as saying that it "needed to update the antivirus but need administrator to do it."

Okay, shouldn't be hard. The antivirus is one that I'm not too crazy over because it, too, has in my opinion design flaws that drive me freakin' batty as well...Central Command's Vexira. However, I take the laptop and start to work.

I ended up having the laptop brought home. I spend some time trying to get Vista to find my wireless network (usually with XP it's a simple matter of clicking the wireless icon in the tool bar and selecting from a list, but this Vista laptops wouldn't show that to me). I eventually found in the networking control panel a line in English, in tiny print, telling me I can "find a network." Fair enough.

It found my (unsecured) wireless network. Join it. Warning: EVERYONE WILL SEE WHAT YOU'RE DOING!" Then it gave a button that didn't look like a button to continue on anyway. I thought it was a label of some sort...nope, just an awkwardly labeled button in the interface. I twitched a little.

It joined my wireless network, telling me the signal strength was excellent. I then right clicked on the Vexira system tray icon and told it to update. And waited. After a few moments I noticed a blinking task bar icon; click that, it tells me that there's a system notice. Click that, and the screen does the obligatory blanking-switch-to-system-screen. Told it to update, and it belches an error with the connection.

Huh?

Told it to "return to my desktop", leading to the laptop blinking a few times.

I was disconnected from the wireless. No reason why, just not connected.

I sigh and go through all the steps to reconnect and once again bring up the update interface on the "special annoy the hell out of the user" desktop.

SAME @#% ERROR. I returned to the regular interface and check the network connection. Disconnected.

I tell the bloody thing to reconnect, and this time "remember the network" and "connect automatically".  This time the notebook connected and stayed connected.

That wasn't the end of the problems, but my gripe here is about Vista, not Vexira. I don't understand why the connection was:
A) so awkward to connect to in the first place.
B) kept disconnecting without notice.
C) had so many @#% clicks to find, establish, and re-establish.

This was on top of the issue with having to switch desktop modes a few times and having the display click and clack as it changed back and forth (resetting video modes? Redetecting the display? I don't know; from the user perspective, all I know is that it ticked me off having to repeatedly go through that annoyance).

I'm a big believer in preventing friction in a user experience. I do what I can to minimize this friction; one thing I do to make it as least annoying as possible is to secure my systems from intrusion and monitor my network usage while removing encryption from my wireless network to make it friendly to the myriad devices we use. This should have made connecting to my wireless network a simple matter of "show available networks, select, connect." So why wouldn't this @#$% notebook connect and stay connected?

Once I told it to "remember the network" and "connect automatically", it stayed connected long enough for me to get a dose of hate for Vexira. The wireless network worked without issues for my wife's Mac. My own Mac hasn't had issues. My iPod hasn't had issues. So unless something is flaky with that notebook's hardware...which hasn't been reported (although possible)...it tells me that my headaches were Vista-related.

It's almost like Vista was going out of it's way to make this three times more difficult than it needed to be! Another checkmark on why I hate Vista. Supposedly Windows 7 improves this dramatically. Me, I'm not so sure I care. There's an Apple ad that pokes fun of the "it has none of the problems Vista had...it has none of the problems XP had...it has none of the problems Windows 2000 had..." There comes a point where I just don't care anymore. When the track record goes this far down, when the experience just fails so hard and far, when I've switched to another platform altogether and found it to be a huge improvement to my ulcers...

I. Just. Don't. Care.

Pay me to try Windows 7, and I might try it. If not then I'll wait until I absolutely need to deal with a new set of headaches.