But the nature of these benefits is somewhat nebulous. The principal advantage of installation, as stated by Microsoft: "[T]he confidence that you are using a copy of Windows that is licensed and fully supported..." Presumably, licensed-users figured this out when they removed the shrink-wrap and agreed to the EULA.

Since the program launch, it has been a magnet for criticism. While the reasons range from simple righteous indignation to a variety of technical issues, the reaction in the media has been heavily weighted towards the negative. Based on my experiences, I must add my voice to that chorus of nay-sayers. Note: while reading the trades as I researched this story, I found numerous reports of WGA users experiencing false positives and other anomalous reporting problems. I have not experienced any of those difficulties, so I will limit my criticisms to what I personally have experienced:

1) Nondisclosure of reporting

Subsequent to the release of WGA, and in response to user complaints of unexplained network activity, Microsoft admitted that the application contacts Microsoft daily. Now, while I don't have a big problem with software using the Internet to check for updates and such (a number of my programs do that), I do have a problem with this behavior not being disclosed prior to installation. This smacks of spyware. Yes, I realize the system is not doing anything malicious, but I have a problem with programs that do not disclose interactions with a remote server. Furthermore, doesn't daily seem excessive for the stated antipiracy goal? I mean, how many times do I have to prove I own it?

2) Labeling WGA a "Critical Update"