Free Technology Newsletters
» All 33 InfoWorld Newsletters
Technology & Business Daily
 
InfoWorld
 
   

Windows' Genuinely Disadvantaged

By Ed Foster, Section The Gripelog
Posted on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 12:10:48 AM PDT

Ever since Microsoft began its pilot testing of the "Windows Genuine Advantage" validation procedure last fall, there's been something about it that's bothered me. But I couldn't quite figure out what it was until this week's announcement that the validation procedure will become mandatory later this year for downloading updates.


As anti-piracy measures go, after all, this is pretty mild stuff. Even when it does become mandatory, users with copies of Windows XP that prove invalid will just be prevented from downloading updates and other software from Microsoft's site. So what about it was bugging me? But as I read all the quotes this week from Microsoft officials saying how Windows Genuine Advantage is really about protecting customers, it occurred to me what the problem is.

Part of it is the type of user the program is aimed at. According to Microsoft officials, almost one of every four Windows users in the U.S. and other developed countries is using a non-genuine version. And the majority of those don't realize it, because the counterfeit copies are often very hard to tell from the real thing. And they will be the ones who Windows Genuine Advantage tags as having ungenuine software, because those who did consciously get a cracked copy of XP probably aren't going to bother trying to validate their copies.

So we're not talking about people who were trying to rip off Microsoft. Instead, an awful lot of people who paid their money for Windows in good faith are going to discover that somebody along the line - a distributor, a reseller, an OEM -- cheated them. They are just as much victims of the counterfeiters as Microsoft. More actually, because they were in less of a position to defend themselves. Perhaps we should call them Windows' Genuinely Disadvantaged.

But at least this validation procedure will protect them in future, right? Well, maybe. But there's another aspect to the problem that I can perhaps best illustrate by quoting from a Microsoft FAQ:

"Q: How do customers benefit from this approach?"
"A: Over time, reduced piracy means that the software industry can invest more in product development, quality and support. This ensures better products and more innovation for customers.... (It) also helps prevent unsuspecting customers from purchasing counterfeit software. Customers who purchase counterfeit products could find they are missing key elements, such as user manuals, product keys, certificates of authenticity and even software code. They may also find that the counterfeit software contains viruses or does not work as well as the genuine product does."

How sweet. But while these sentiments are now echoed in Microsoft's explanations for why Windows Genuine Advantage will help customers, this is actually from a much older Microsoft FAQ page, back when Windows XP was new. And the approach it's talking about is product activation.

In other words, we've heard this all before. And, at least in terms of protecting customers from counterfeit software, product activation obviously was a complete failure. Is there really any reason to believe that this new validation process will be anymore successful at guaranteeing that honest customers in the future don't unwittingly become one of the Windows' Genuinely Disadvantaged? I sure don't see it. And, given that neither activation nor validation is likely to deter the real software pirates, one has to wonder what anti-piracy process Microsoft will require next.

Post your comments below or write me directly at Foster@gripe2ed.com.

< Terms of Embarrassment | Out of Options With TurboTax >


Display: Sort:
Windows' Genuinely Disadvantaged | 173 comments (173 topical) | Post A Comment
Counterfeit?[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#1)
by Mason on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 03:29:51 AM PDT

Ah, I don't know -- I'd imagine that in places where "genuine counterfeit" copies of Windows are sold, it's common knowledge.

[ Reply to This ]


Authenticate[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#2)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 04:32:14 AM PDT

Microsoft is taking the same route that other software developers had taken unsuccesfully. It is the software developers who will be the loosers as genuine users would be in trouble, they will loose their customers; a couple of months ago a video game developer 'Valve' had taken this 'anti-piracy' step and as predicted many of the customers returned back their retail copies to stores.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Key to the Back Door[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#165)
by Banazauk on Mon Feb 13, 2006 at 07:13:02 AM PDT

What i find funny about the whole genuine advantage thing is that Microsoft have put in a back door to get the updates. If you have downloaded the genuine update. Then all you have to do is turn it off in Internet options. I laughed my pants off when i found out. Microsoft appear to be trying hard to defeat piracy but upon closer look they have put in away around it all. All i have to say is HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Closing the "Back Door"[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#166)
by bulova on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 10:32:13 PM PDT

Just where in Internet Options is the spot where "Genuine Advantage" can be turned off?

Bartlet: Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, concerned citizens can change the world. Do you know why?

Will: That's the only thing that ever has
[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Genuine Advantage: More Viruses[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#39)
by kstern on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 09:07:09 AM PDT

If 25% or more of Windows cannot be updated, it's that many more machines open to Virus/Trojan infections that turn them into Viral Spreading Machines. These updates are primarily to repair defects in the original release of the software -- defects which should not have been present in the first place. Imagine if you had to bring your car in to the dealer once a month for "updates".

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Don't be stupid.[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#66)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 12:07:39 PM PDT

Nice analogy, and how many car dealers would be willing to "update" the cars that were stolen from their lot? Not many I think.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


missed the point[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#71)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 12:31:21 PM PDT

But imagine if you bought a car in good faith, only to return for critical maintenance, and to be told that you had unwittingly bought a counterfit, and you must now accept it as is - i.e. in need of critical maintenance.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


car analogy[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#83)
by kstern on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 02:50:22 PM PDT

It's more like a recall to repair a safety defect, caused by manufacturer's negligence, which endangers not only the driver and his passengers, but also innocent bystanders.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Re: Security updates[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#93)
by foxyshadis1 on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 03:26:19 AM PDT

Security Updates through automatic updates (and windows update? Maybe) will still work. Then again, on nearly every client computer I find that people simply ignore the update icon, and definitely never visit windows update, so only SP2 machines will really benefit from that.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Bad Move Microsoft[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#163)
by Anonymous User on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 09:02:37 PM PDT

Microsoft in my opinion is wide open to many problems and always will be.Just look at the way it allows outher computers to acess ours everytime we go on the internet.Browsers like (Firefox) are becomeing more popular all of the time because they are much better than anything microsoft`s Outlook & Internet Explorer can offer. And why do we keep getting buggy updates like service pack 2,everyone needed a reload after that mess came out. what i am trying to say is that if Microsoft wants to sell the people software they should first make it worth buying and not leave it up to the customer to carry the burdon of helping make it work right by constantly downloading Service Packs & Patches. It is time for something better !!!

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Not always[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#86)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 06:01:10 PM PDT

It's not always known.  It's far too easy for a shady company to sell an organization 10 new computers with only one legal license of Windows or without a legal license at all.  It's very common for small local companies which build PCs to bid on a project and undercut their competition by not including Windows licenses in the price and installing Windows and/or Office illegally.  The organization in question finds out that they have an illegal copy after it's too late to do anything about it other than hope they don't get in trouble or call Microsoft and fork out the money to pay for the legal licenses which they thought they were buying when they bought their computers.

I work for an organization which paid for a vendor to come in and install a Windows XP upgrade on roughly 10 or 15 computers.  I found out when I tried to upgrade the computers to Service Pack 2 that we don't have a real Windows XP CD ROM, we have a burned copy of the Windows XP CD ROM, and we don't have a Certificate of Authenticity.

I am very grateful that Microsoft wrote Service Pack 2 so that it won't install on those computers because now I know that I need to buy the necessary licenses and make sure that we're legal so that if we're audited we have only legal software running on our computers.   I've been working over the last couple of years to make sure that all of the software which is installed on our computers is legally licensed for the computer(s) which it is installed on and I'm almost there.  I thought that I was completely there until I found these computers.  Now I can take the necessary steps to buy the software which we should have bought a year ago and keep us legal.

The employee who brought in the outside vendor who installed the software retired immediately after it was installed.  I do not know if the employee knew that it was not a legal license or if he thought that the vendor was selling us legal licenses to install on the computers and I am unlikely to ever find out.  I'm just glad that I found the problem before someone did an audit of our systems and found it for us.  That could have been a very expensive audit while buying the software is going to be very inexpensive, and it's obviously something which we need because we're using it.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Re: Not Always[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#105)
by byelen on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 07:38:04 AM PDT

And aren't you adding to the problem by not taking action against the vendor who "sold" you the counterfeit copies?

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Maybe[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#111)
by tscoff on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 05:11:19 PM PDT

Maybe and maybe not.  What if the burned CD was provided by the employee who retired instead of the vendor?

Once I find the original invoice, if we're charged for Windows XP we will turn that over to Microsoft.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Microsoft Audit[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#119)
by auctionhugh on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 10:27:38 AM PDT

While I find it commendable that you are trying to be 100% in compliance, I find it hard to fathom that if you have 1000 valid licenses and 10 invalid ones, Microsoft would make any sort of a deal out of it in an audit, except to ask you to buy the 10 valid licenses.

-----
Get help with your website from AuctionHugh's wife Kathleen.
Professional, artistic, and EASY for you!
Kallen Web Design of Kalamazoo



[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Re: Not always[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#129)
by Anonymous User on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 02:03:18 PM PDT

He is a real angel, isn't he?

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Who Cares?[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#3)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 05:00:38 AM PDT

I quit using Wondooze last July. I do NOT miss the constant updates to fix the blatant security problems, and now I won't miss the validation hassle. If people don't like the way MS acts, there are alternatives. If they stick with MS and then bitch about it, they have only themselves to blame.

[ Reply to This ]


Re: Who Cares[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#53)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 09:59:53 AM PDT

Wow! You've found an operating system that doesn't have or need security updates? Please give the rest of us a clue as to what OS this is (hint: it's not OSX, Linux, or any Unix I can think of)

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


It's...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#62)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 11:48:08 AM PDT

Nachos?

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


nachos ...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#114)
by microbee on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 09:02:33 AM PDT

As in Not yo' OS (or anyone else's).

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Real reasons[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#4)
by laird on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 05:06:31 AM PDT

It's obvious that "Windows Genuine Advantage" isn't about protecting users from anything, it's about protecting Microsoft's sales revenue. Specifically, Microsoft has nearly 100% market share, and the OEM's won't pay more for the OS given the ever-dropping prices of PC's, so the only way that they can keep growing revenue is to improve enforcement. There's never been a report of any of the hypothetical user problems that Microsoft invokes -- anybody selling unlicensed copies of Windows includes everything needed to run the operating system, simply by duplicating Microsoft's CD's and manuals. That's not to say that Microsoft shouldn't be trying to prevent companies from selling unlicensed copies of their software (just as Sony tries to prevent companies from selling rip-offs of their products, etc.), or to make more money. But it's absurd for Microsoft to claim that they're doing this to protect users from imaginary threats instead of protecting their valid, but less noble, business goals.

[ Reply to This ]


Windows' Genuinely Disadvantaged[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#5)
by apple on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 05:25:15 AM PDT

One word folks . . . Macintosh :o)

[ Reply to This ]


A better word[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#9)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 06:10:34 AM PDT

Linux

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Oh, my word![ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#13)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 06:33:51 AM PDT

One of each, please!

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


The last word?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#16)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 07:08:59 AM PDT

In my house there's one of each plus FreeBSD! Do I hear OpenBSD? NetBSD? Anyone? Anyone?

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Linux?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#27)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 07:43:00 AM PDT

Until Linux can either A) seamlessly run Windows apps OUT OF THE BOX so the average user can install Linux and run it like Windows, or B) ALL the common Windows apps are ported (Including ALL MS Office components like Publisher), the world will sadly need Windows.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Yes, Linux[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#38)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 08:43:10 AM PDT

Just guessing, there might be 100,000 Windows applications. Saying that Linux must be able to run all of them to be a viable alternative is simply wrong. Most people only need to browse the web and run an Office type app. Not a problem - there are several excellent choices on Linux that do the job very well. If you really must run Windows apps, the popular ones run "out of the box" via CrossOver Office.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


sure[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#44)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 09:14:01 AM PDT

or C) all the Office equivilents are available in linux and run better than Office itself, and Without the encumberances of copying MS software into linux format, or trying to run it in violation of MS licences. What's wrong with OpenOffice? or Knoppix?

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Yes, Linux[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#46)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 09:19:48 AM PDT

No, we don't need every Microsoft program to run on Linux... besides, I seriously doubt if they will publish MS Office for Linux in the near future. ;) Anyways, part of the reason I switched to Linux is because it's easier to install/maintain/remove software than it is on windows. Different though (no "control panel/add-remove programs" in slackware) And, all the software I need is out there and it's free.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


No![ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#123)
by Anonymous User on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 10:49:37 AM PDT

You got it the other way round man! It should have been : Until Windows can run all the Linux apps and without the security problems it currently has, then I may consider running Windows.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Ports[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#164)
by Anonymous User on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 01:04:33 PM PDT

Ports are not the only way to make Windows not needed.  There are also alternatives.  For example, OpenOffice.org is a freeware cross-platform alternative that does everything Microsoft Office does and is fully compatible.  For what most people do with computers, ignorance is the only thing keeping them from being able to use Linux.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


FreeBSD[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#42)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 09:09:10 AM PDT

FreeBSD all the way here.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


OSX updates[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#63)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 11:50:36 AM PDT

During the 10.3.7 update from Apple, my powermac had a kernel panic and I was not able to get it back up and running again. I had to reinstall the OS. I've never had that level of failure with an XP update.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


fluke[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#72)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 12:36:12 PM PDT

I've never had a problem w/ an OSX update, including 10.3.7 which installed w/o a hitch.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Alternately...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#73)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 12:40:52 PM PDT

These things happen with all OS...depends how many people are willing to admit it. That's why I never trust zealots - Mac / open source / windows. Software is never perfect that is why we all backup.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Lifelong IT lover hampered by monopoly[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#103)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 05:06:48 AM PDT

The various Windows releases have always an ongoing learning process. When in network install/support looking after a 6000 user network the majority of all problems resulted from the stupid bugs in Windows versions, the upgrades and the (oh so clever and big and hard) subtle changes they make to screw over anything that might be competition. The job became proving to the Windows Server and Desktop support teams that the network was indeed working, and they should go away and read more white papers and marketing material. The way we did this? Plug a Linux box in and ping out.

I ditched Windows in 1998. Once you've invested time learning Linux, you're flying. That's it.

Is Gates successful? Is he? Really? Or just a greedy selfish man who makes the concept of capitalism look bad?

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



OSX Updates[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#106)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 10:34:56 AM PDT

...yet. :) Some of us have. I've had Linux and Windows systems crap out like this, and Linux was MUCH easier to recover from.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


XP update failure[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#134)
by Anonymous User on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 03:58:19 PM PDT

Maybe not a reinstall, but I came close.  Tried installing SP2 on one of our XP machines.  After about 5 minutes, got an error message about an "invalid signature" and that the install would rollback.  Click OK, let it rollback and reboot, and got a big nothing.  No safe mode, no booting of any sort.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


XP Update - not[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#143)
by Anonymous User on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 11:38:50 AM PDT

I tried upgrading a Compaq EVO d300v a few months ago with XP SP2 and it killed the box. Couldn't boot. I tried to boot from CD and repair but it was gone. I had to reinstall XP from scratch.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


next time[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#144)
by Anonymous User on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 12:24:09 PM PDT

Download a CD-Image of the appropriate version of XP (Home or Pro) and burn it to a CD, you have the license, so there's nothing wrong with, and you still have to use you Product Key and go through the stupid activation. So you're covered both ways there...

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Download a CD image...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#147)
by Anonymous User on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 10:12:09 PM PDT

...with what? His computer won't boot, presumably even into safe mode, and it's doubtful there'd be functioning network access from safe mode. It's also doubtful he can convince a friend to tie up their broadband connection for weeks downloading a 670MB file without the friend insisting on terms and conditions along the lines of "All your beer are belong to us"...

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


You're kidding, right?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#148)
by Anonymous User on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 06:56:26 AM PDT

He got to a computer to post his message didn't he? And 1 GB on broadband can be downloaded overnight... Besides, it may not help with his Compaq (garbage systems that they are), but next time around, he can be ready... For that matter, why bother to D/L, especially if he can find someone with the same version OS CD...

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


yes[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#205)
by maderikapapa on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:58:23 PM PDT

出会い出会い系サイト出会い喫茶出会い掲示板ナンパ出会いカフェ人妻出会い無 009;系サイト優良出会い系攻略 完全無料。アダルトビデオアダルト動画アダルトアニメアダルト画像アダル 488;サイト無料DVDアダルト風俗サンプル無料風俗優良アダルトサイト比較海 806;。人妻画像人妻パラダイス知合い人妻援護会人妻コレクション風 439;告白。熟女画像東京熟女掲示板動画熟女ビデオおまんこオナニーエロ画像エロフラッシュアニメ 456;ロ動画エロゲームエロ漫画無料エロサイト。エッチ画像エッチ動画エッチ小説写真エッチ 450;ニメエッチ0930。セックスアナルセックス画像セックス動画セックスフレンドスワッピングSEX写真セックスボランティセ 483;クス体位東京セックス仕方 SEX。おっぱい画像おっぱい村長おっぱい楽園掲示板お 387;ぱい命おっぱいゲーム。巨乳動画巨乳画像アイドル巨乳 522;示板風俗。セフレ募集セフレ掲示板セフレ画像掲示板セフレの作り方出会い無料素人セフレ。童貞狩りエロ漫画童貞狩り童貞喪失童貞オークション素人童貞逆援不倫パートナー不倫出会い人妻不倫不倫を楽しみたい方にはお薦め 154;妻画像など満載出会いサイトを楽しむならココ無料出会いで一緒に遊ぼう出会いはLOVEアゲインで決まり

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Capitalism 101[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#6)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 05:30:06 AM PDT

"Over time, reduced piracy means that the software industry can invest more in product development, quality and support." Right, right. Because, of course, Microsoft doesn't make obscene profits at all - they invest everything in product development, quality and support, and there's hardly a penny left over to make Bill the world's richest man. If only they made a few more sales, they'd have more to invest! More sales means more profits, not flat profits and more investment. They would only make those investments if they think it will raise profits anyway. Funny how many people just don't get capitalism, despite living with it all their lives...

[ Reply to This ]


Capitalism 101[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#19)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 07:17:29 AM PDT

Studying the market share Microsoft currently has (100 % of the Microsoft Windows Operating System!) the piracy of Windows benefits the software industry giving it more dynamics. If few people will have access to the MS Operating System the industry will reduce in this sector, and give the resources to another (Unix flavours, MACs, etc,etc). So finally Microsoft is benefited in part of piracy althought they can't measure the correct proportion. Regards,

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Capitalism 101[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#34)
by hughesmw on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 07:59:06 AM PDT

As seems to be the trend in big corporate America, concentrate on the profit and forget about the customer. I can't understand why Microsoft believes that blaming the customer for product issues OR illegal copying is a good long term business model.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Capitalism 101[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#61)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 11:41:27 AM PDT

I don't believe that Microsoft is blaming their customers. I believe they are trying to convince people to buy legitimate software from a legit business and move away from buying pirated software from some fly by night business operating on the internet. Maybe when their software shuts down, people will learn that you get what you pay for. Don't be a doughhead. Purchase real software from people who work hard to create it. I'm sure that you wouldn't want someone obtaining your life's work for free.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


On the other side of the coin[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#156)
by Anonymous User on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 05:02:14 PM PDT

I know alot of people myself included who, are sick of dishing out big bucks to software companies who dupe the public by knowingly releasing defective software & either working out the bugs at the buyers time & expense or not working out the bugs at all & offering the buyer the option to buy the next version at a reduced price to solve their problem. So now I run about 90% cracked software & if I find a product that works good & lives up to its claims I buy it. As for microsoft I don't think they should be requiring validation for downloading of non OS related software such as anti spyware and other free microsoft programs that are not part of windows package. It's time to take them back to court again This time for forcing the public to use windows in order to have access to microsofts free or Beta products, after all joe blow the computer geek down the street could have just finished 6 years of key pounding & created his own OS that runs windows programs. But seriously windows xp sp2 still has alot of problems & I am not convinced that if I buy a legal copy of XP pro that these problems will just go away. Microsoft should look at us illegal users as beta testers, we are the guys who click the button to send a report every time a program crashes so they have the data to correct the problems & all we want in exchange is a free copy with updates.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


in re: capitalism 101[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#120)
by Anonymous User on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 10:32:10 AM PDT

> As seems to be the trend in big corporate > America, concentrate on the profit and forget > about the customer. Not a new trend: see Standard Oil, typing pools, "Age of Reason" enlightened despots, Pharoah, spammers.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Disadvantage Windows[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#7)
by GentooPhile on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 05:41:40 AM PDT

I am always amazed at how much control Microsoft expects the End User to give up, when you read their license agreements for the software. When you can't even BENCHMARK their software and release the results without checking with them first, there is something pretty fishy about that. I only run an old copy of Win98SE on a workstation here to use as a game playing platform. Other than that, I use a Linux desktop, and NO M$ stuff. If M$ could figure out how to control the hardware market like the Apple people do, along with their near total control over the software end in business settings, the world would be controlled by Bill in pretty short order. Even Bush couldn't dictate terms to him then. Luckily for us, we have alternatives, and NOT just Linux, though I do tend to favor it a lot. Just a thought. If you hate Windows THAT much, then ditch it for whatever spins your crank. What have you got to lose?

[ Reply to This ]


No This is the real reason...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#11)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 06:18:37 AM PDT

It is hilarious to me when they say and I quote;

"Over time, reduced piracy means that the software industry can invest more in product development, quality and support. This ensures better products and more innovation for customers.... "

Well, last quarter, they reported earnings of $3.46 Billion or 32 cents per share. Yes folks, Billions with a "B"!

Now, are they trying to say that is not enough to make Windows safer? How much do they pay their developers? 5 Million a year?

I just got a Trojan that destroyed Internet Explorer on an XP Pro machine. I was using Norton Antivirus latest virus files and it was Active. Not even Symantec engineers could figure out how to clean the machine after 2 hours of Level II tech support.
Their solution? Reformat the hard drive and reinstall Windows. This was last night 1/27/05, I swear.

Well yes, I will be reformating the drive, but Linux  will be going in instead. Bye-Bye for ever Microcrap!


[ Parent | Reply to This ]



bye bye microcrap[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#70)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 12:27:37 PM PDT

good for you, man...

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Bye bye Microcrap[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#104)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 05:12:23 AM PDT

Yeah, good for you man. Welcome back to IT! You said Microcrap, I prefer McRosoft.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Bill is limited to the x86 market[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#49)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 09:26:23 AM PDT

The world won't be controlled by Bill, ever. Let MS have the x86 world, Linux runs on IBM's new power-pc chip, and MS can't. And as a bonus, any x86 PC running Windoze can switch to something better, without getting new hardware. In fact, why get new hardware at all? 5-10yr old computers still work fine for all office related work. (only games need the newest speed and graphics)

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Web Applications Also...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#87)
by tscoff on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 06:11:51 PM PDT

Many web based applications also need newer and faster computers.  A lot of developers are writing web based applications so that they require the latest web browsers in order to work.  The latest web browsers, in my case Netscape was the culprit, run extremely slowly on 6 or 7 year old computers even with RAM upgrades.  Without the RAM upgrades the web browsers can be so slow that they're useless.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Hackers Genuinely Advantaged[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#8)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 06:08:20 AM PDT

From what I've seen hackers have no problem in going around most security measures. It probably won't be long till the Windows "updates", patches and fixes appear on wesites or file sharing networks. I believe Microsoft is just making it harder for itself by scaring of potential future Windows customers. Most security patches and fixes are due to the vulnerabilities existant in Windows Explorer but now the free Mozilla Firefox browser is chipping away at it's share of the market. Other browsers or out there in the market which compete against windows Explorer like Opera and Fast Browser. Apparently Microsoft is seeing it's Windows platform loosing ground.

[ Reply to This ]


Windows? HAH![ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#10)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 06:16:45 AM PDT

I have to agree with the Macintosh comment....who needs an operating system that continually is buggy, full of exploit holes, and bogs down your computer like Windows does? Get a Mac and experience what a REAL OS is all about! Stability, quickness, and an all-around ease-of use is what OS X is all about. Maybe if more people would test one out at a local Apple store or bum a few hours on a friend's Mac....Microsoft wouldn't have the monopoly they hold on the public! And now, with an AFFORDABLE Mac (the Mac Mini at $499), you can plug in your old monitor and USB keyboard and mouse and never go back to Windows again! Try a Mac....you'll LOVE it!

[ Reply to This ]


Re: Windows? HAH![ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#58)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 11:08:39 AM PDT

The reason is simple - Mac's have been historically too expensive. Until this year, I could buy 3 to 5 times the PC for the same amount of money I would spend on a decently equipped Mac. However, I will agree, with the debut of the Mac Mini (quite a sweet machine if you add in some upgrades, and still a decent pricetag after upgrading) and coming lower pricing from Apple, things may just change.......

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Macs too expensive?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#74)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 12:42:26 PM PDT

I fail to see how this myth keeps getting perpetuated. My PC laptops (Dells, when they were worth something) were every bit as expensive as, if not more expensive than, my PowerBooks. And this isn't recently - all of these are more than 2 years old. While it's true that a tech-savvy person can probably build their own PC for a lot less than the cost of a Mac, most less sophisticated users will buy a name-brand PC - which costs every bit as much as a comparable Mac.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Not true...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#77)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 01:16:20 PM PDT

If all the comments here about average users is true this is not a myth. If "average users" only need to check mail, use a bit of office-like utilities and browse the web, you can get a PC along with freebies like a keyboard, mouse and monitor for 600 bucks any day (a friend bought one last week). I also have a desktop that does all that and more which is over 3 years old and was 600 bucks then with a printer. This is not true even today for the cheapest Mac. Let's drop this "comparably equipped" discussion. If we are talking about minimal, basic use Linux is cheaper than Windows is cheaper than Mac. If you are talking about specialized, high-end use then the cost becomes secondary. I have softwares that are only available on one of the other platform so I use different platforms for different purposes. It doesn't matter how cheap the machine is if it doesn't work.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Today Mac is cheaper[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#133)
by Anonymous User on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 02:00:59 PM PDT

If you already have a mouse, keyboard and monitor you can switch to Mac for $500.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Yeah...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#141)
by Anonymous User on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 05:15:44 PM PDT

...if they've got phone jacks in them and the Apple logo on them. Of course, their "appletalk" thing is deliberately incompatible with ps/2 mouse and keyboard cables. Maybe if they're USB and there are Macs with USB ports though...

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Peripherals are peripherals[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#142)
by tscoff on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 04:11:34 AM PDT

Apple has finally stopped selling proprietary hardware.  Today you can plug almost any USB mouse and keyboard into any Macintosh.  Apple hasn't added PS/2 ports, and I doubt that they ever will, but that's a minor annoyance because you can buy a PS/2 to USB adapter if you feel that you really need to use that old PS/2 keyboard with your Mac like I do.

P.S.  Yes, I use a PS/2 keyboard with my PowerBook.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]