Microsoft to Lock Pirates Out of Vista

[Aahz]

So basically they are telling me that if I pirate Vista they'll disable most of the crap that I go in and disable on first boot?

It'd be nice to not have to disable some stuff with each new install and just remove the watermark and kill the outbound info but it'd be much nicer for me to pay something reasonable like oh $50 for a new OS instead.

[L3thal Veteran]

Just lower the price and everyone will buy it, jeesh.

If only that philosophy actually worked... :sleep:

[Raven]

why don't they just sell Vista at a very low price? I am pretty sure ppl will buy instead of using copy

One of the reasons I don't worry about Vista's copy protection is because I switched to OS X. Tired of the crap and tired of the hassles. I own my XP's and still have had activation problems due to hardware switching and reloads.

When Leopard comes out next year my upgrade price (with all features enabled and no activation hassles) will be $99 at most. If a company as small as Apple can sell the OS this cheap, then surely the richest company in the world can afford to offer Vista for $99. I guess when half your revenue is paying lawyers then $299 is needed for Vista.... ')

[webeagle12]

This Operating System will self-destruct in 5 seconds! :laugh:

But the number solution to stop piracy of their OS is;

1) Lower Prices

2) Stop making ****ty updates (they are going on 2nd and 3rd iterrations of "fixes", that is totally unacceptable)

I agree with #1

the prices are fu***** redicilous

[dragon2611]

Microsoft has programmers to pay, along with their marketing team, testing team, partners, etc. Not to mention Microsoft has spent a fortune on Vista, which they also have to make back.

Yes, I know someone will say Microsoft has lots of money, but investors and shareholders want revenue and profit coming in and not the money that's been sitting there for years.

Also, for those that are claiming here that calling home is spyware, a lawsuit will not work this time. Expect Microsoft to make it clear on their EULA that you give them the right to check your copy of Windows to make sure it is genuine. Since you will have to accept the EULA to install Vista, you have no other option, not even having Jesus suing them.

Some companies try to make out you accept the EULA just by breaking the seal on on the box/cd case

yet you can't read the EULA untill you've opened the box and popped the disc in.

Besides im not sure if the EULA is actually legally binding (i heard somewhere that it wouldn't stand up in court but i don't know if theres any truth in that.)

[L3thal Veteran]

One of the reasons I don't worry about Vista's copy protection is because I switched to OS X. Tired of the crap and tired of the hassles. I own my XP's and still have had activation problems due to hardware switching and reloads.

When Panther comes out next year my upgrade price (with all features enabled and no activation hassles) will be $99 at most. If a company as small as Apple can sell the OS this cheap, then surely the richest company in the world can afford to offer Vista for $99. I guess when half your revenue is paying lawyers then $299 is needed for Vista.... ')

I think you also forget that Apple releases an update to their OS about once a year or so while Microsoft releases a new OS every 4-5 years.

So kids, lets do this basic Math.

1 release x every year for 5 years x $99 upgrade = $500

Windows Vista - $299 with no additional charges

So, every 5 years, you will be spending give or take, $500 on OSX updates. With Windows, you pay a flat out fee and get to keep Vista until it isn't supported anymore, not to mention free Service Packs :whistle:

[Hexicon]

Hartje cited data from the Business Software Alliance that indicated 35 percent of all software installed in 2005 was pirated and unlicensed. This represented some $35 billion in lost revenue for the software industry.

So in other words, 65% of the software installed was legit and earned the companies positive revenue of $65 billion. Not too bad. Of course, they really need that extra $35 billion for advertising, lawsuits, bloated salaries for the executives, and other miniscule things.

If Vista was more around the $50.00 mark for the standard basic home user (I don't need Aero, nor do I need some of the other "eye candy" Vista offers) I would definitely go out and get it. If not, after my RC1 (RTM?) copy expires next year I will scrub the drive (after backing up my important information) and it will be back to XP Pro SP2.

[Chadwick]

If only that philosophy actually worked... :sleep:

erm, the only people i know who have legal copys of XP are those who's computer came with it OEM, nobody I know bought windows, nobody I know can afford to buy windows or vista.

they should go the apple route, people are more likely to spend 130 bucks a year for an update rather than wait 3 years and pay 3x as much.

[Andy07]

while theres always a 30 day trial theres always a way round.

[L3thal Veteran]

yet you can't read the EULA untill you've opened the box and popped the disc in.

Besides im not sure if the EULA is actually legally binding (i heard somewhere that it wouldn't stand up in court but i don't know if theres any truth in that.)

You do not accept the EULA by opening the box in this case. When you pop in the disc and it shows you the EULA with an option to accept by pressing F12, you are agreeing to everything that was included in that license agreement. If it says in fine print that they have the right to call home to verify your copy, you cannot say no and file a lawsuit. That's the same thing as not paying your monthly car payment and you suing the car dealer/bank for taking your car away. When you accept to an agreement/contract/license, you are held accountable for everything that is stated therein.

[sundayx Veteran]

why don't they just sell Vista at a very low price? I am pretty sure ppl will buy instead of using copy

QFT

[L3thal Veteran]

erm, the only people i know who have legal copys of XP are those who's computer came with it OEM, nobody I know bought windows, nobody I know can afford to buy windows or vista.

they should go the apple route, people are more likely to spend 130 bucks a year for an update rather than wait 3 years and pay 3x as much.

Of course, we all know that if the people you know won't buy it because they can't afford it, then everyone in this world won't buy it for the same reason.

Lets face it people, whether Vista was $50 or $1000, people would still pirate it for the fact that they have to pay for it. I mean, you have people that pirate $5 software, what makes you think they will not pirate Vista even if it were $50?

Oh, and about Apple and their updates, charging you $130/year for updates in 4 years accumulates to nearly $500 when with Vista, you spend $299 for more than 5 years of usage :whistle:

[macstorm]

Another reason to laugh on MS :D

[hotdog666al]

If they don't like it, pay for it like the rest of us honest customers or use something else.

Latter.

[simsie]

IMO this is getting silly now, XP already has 2 point activation (and 2 cracks). Vista is getting more anti-piracy measures, yet all i see is xp with a nice new interface (stardock got glass on xp). It seems to me we are paying for anti-piracy measures that are only obeyed by the legitimate people and that the people it is designed to stop have no doubts when it comes to cracking it.

[Buttus]

"Called the Software Protection Program, the initiative is made up of several parts. The first move is to make certain features unavailable unless the user has confirmed their copy of Windows as genuine. Only licensed copies would have access to Aero -- Vista's new user interface -- and ReadyBoost, which uses a flash drive to temporarily add more memory to a computer system."

That's funny, but those 2 things I will never use...

[lol911]

Oh, and about Apple and their updates, charging you $130/year for updates in 4 years accumulates to nearly $500 when with Vista, you spend $299 for more than 5 years of usage :whistle:

Vista won't last 5 years, as stated repeatedly by MS and their monkeys :)

[sdb815]

You do not accept the EULA by opening the box in this case. When you pop in the disc and it shows you the EULA with an option to accept by pressing F12, you are agreeing to everything that was included in that license agreement. If it says in fine print that they have the right to call home to verify your copy, you cannot say no and file a lawsuit. That's the same thing as not paying your monthly car payment and you suing the car dealer/bank for taking your car away. When you accept to an agreement/contract/license, you are held accountable for everything that is stated therein.

And what are the people that don't agree with the EULA supposed to do? The store won't refund them the money because the box has been opened. They need to put the EULA outside the box so that you can read it before you pay for it.

[C_Guy]

1 OS X release x every year for 5 years x $99 upgrade = $500

Windows Vista - $299 with no additional charges

So, every 5 years, you will be spending give or take, $500 on OSX updates. With Windows, you pay a flat out fee and get to keep Vista until it isn't supported anymore, not to mention free Service Packs :whistle:

Not only that but compare OS X 10 to 10.5 and the interface is almost identical. Look at the jump from XP to Vista and it's very, very different.

Also, consider that in addition to free service packs and upgrades, Windows customers also get free software such as Photo Story, Internet Explorer, Media Player, PowerToys, and more as part of Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA). In a sense, you are paying for this already but on the other hand, look how many new software programs were developed and given away to XP customers even years after XP's initial release (and hence your initial investment). Apple certainly does not offer this, at least, not on the same scale.

[MulletRobZ]

Not only that but compare OS X 10 to 10.5 and the interface is almost identical. Look at the jump from XP to Vista and it's very, very different.

Also, consider that in addition to free service packs and upgrades, Windows customers also get free software such as Photo Story, Internet Explorer, Media Player, PowerToys, and more as part of Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA). In a sense, you are paying for this already but on the other hand, look how many new software programs were developed and given away to XP customers even years after XP's initial release (and hence your initial investment). Apple certainly does not offer this, at least, not on the same scale.

Two words for that: Bull ****!

Mac OS X includes the iLife applications (iTunes, iPhoto, iChat, iDVD, etc), AppleWorks, Safari, Mail, Dashboard, QuickTime, and quite a few others right off the bat. Also, the new computers include the World Book Encyclopedia. While developers have not made as many programs for Mac OS X as for Windows, it's only because Windows owns 95% of the market for heaven's sake! If it was Apple who had the monopoly, then Mac OS X users would benefit from the same! Still, there are quite a few applications available for Mac OS X users as is.

And if you're complaining that Mac OS X 10.0 to 10.5 look pretty much identical, well Vista still has pretty much maintained most of its ergonomics since Windows 95, backed up by some of the stuff from as far back as Windows 3.1! At least Apple did the smart move of totally redesigning Mac OS X from the ground up (compared to Mac OS 9, which is definitely not user friendly)!

But anyway, back to the topic! About Windows Vista's anti-piracy measures, I have no doubt that those will be cracked by the time Vista RTM is available in stores (possibly before then). After all, with all the hassles you have to put up with Windows, it's just not worth dishing out $300 US for such a POS!

[Saadu]

Oh how i wish vista was 99 a piece. I would consider buying it. Until then, its student copy for me!! I paid 65Eur for my XP.

[spenser.d]

erm, the only people i know who have legal copys of XP are those who's computer came with it OEM, nobody I know bought windows, nobody I know can afford to buy windows or vista.

they should go the apple route, people are more likely to spend 130 bucks a year for an update rather than wait 3 years and pay 3x as much.

Are you kidding me. I bought WinXP Home for $90 (OEM Copy) off Newegg. And then later on, I bought WinXP MCE 2005 for $130 off Newegg. I find those prices damn reasonable for what I get.

-Spenser

[Inplode]

LOLz vista will be hacked might take a bit longer but it will be just a matter of time

Hell there is a work around for the latest release of vista that removes the timebomb so YES its jsut a matter of time

[boogerjones]

When you accept to an agreement/contract/license, you are held accountable for everything that is stated therein.

Ahhh, but that's where you're wrong. While contracts are usually enforceable, they have limitations. This is where "common sense law" comes into play. I like to use unrealistic examples to illustrate the point, but the principle applies to all contractual agreements: if Windows' EULA said that, by agreeing to its terms, you must allow them to come and kill you, do you think they'd have a legal defense against murder? Of course not. While it's an extreme example, the point is that a contract is not absolute.

[Pink Floyd Veteran]

Microsoft has programmers to pay, along with their marketing team, testing team, partners, etc. Not to mention Microsoft has spent a fortune on Vista, which they also have to make back.

Yes, I know someone will say Microsoft has lots of money, but investors and shareholders want revenue and profit coming in and not the money that's been sitting there for years.

Also, for those that are claiming here that calling home is spyware, a lawsuit will not work this time. Expect Microsoft to make it clear on their EULA that you give them the right to check your copy of Windows to make sure it is genuine. Since you will have to accept the EULA to install Vista, you have no other option, not even having Jesus suing them.

I agree with you they have many ppl to pay but they could have less to pay if they were actually working on the code to make it working and not working on a way to prevent piracy. I am pretty sure they have a huge team that fully work on the encrypting and to prevent piracy.