Talk:Windows Product Activation

message: In truth, ANY SLP 2.1 or 2.0 key can be used with any motherboard, as long as the installed client certificate matches the SLP 2.x data in the BIOS on the motherboard.  While it's possible MS may start detecting hacks in the future by comparing the SLIC 2.1 data with the key in the future, this has not happened yet.  The same was true of SLP 1.0 in Windows XP. ANY royalty OEM key will work, provided the signature is present in BIOS and checks out with the OEMBIOS files.  In fact, MS themselves provides a valid SLP key for windows XP professional on their web site, to help out people trying to reinstall with their COA OEM key, which all got blacklisted because people were transferring the stickers to other computers.74.211.59.62 (talk) 22:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual errors 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  More bias (originally uncategorized) 

message: I’ve added the NPOV tag, because this article clearly has a bias against Microsoft’s activation requirements for Windows.  It even makes use of the term “sadly”—there is absolutely no way that this sort of biased language could be justified in a discussion here.  The article is full of original research, and the personal opinions of users.  I’m going to create an account, and then begin proposals for revisions to this article shortly. 207.81.100.176 (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clear anti-Microsoft bias 

message: I have somewhat cleaned up the article, and hopefully removed some of the words and phrases which contributed to the NPOV issues.  However, the Rationale section still sticks out like a sore thumb, and I'm not sure how to rewrite it.  --Resplendent (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup / Bias Removal 

message: There should be a section on this.   Can you deactivare a licence and move it elsewhere to new hardware?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.75.83.25 (talk) 12:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think you'd have to call Microsoft to organize it... if you feel you can find the information on it (and find reliable sources for it as well), feel free to add it in. --Michaelkourlas (talk) 17:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Deactivation/Licence Transferring

message: I suggest we remove this section. It is unnecessary and defeats the point of the article. The article should talk about the concept and how it works, not advertise why it is good or bad.--Michaelkourlas (talk) 23:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Benefits" section 

message: This screenshot shows nothing important. It just shows one sentence saying that Windows has been activated. There are too many pictures on this article considering the size of it anyway. The screenshot also has text selected and thus does not look that good. I thus have removed it. If anyone disagrees, please discuss it here.--Michaelkourlas (talk) 23:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  File:Wpa-success-win2k8.png removal 

message: I have revamped the citations. Unless someone does not agree with me, I will remove the citations templates.--Michaelkourlas (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  No more citations are needed