Microsoft to Lock Pirates Out of Vista

[illicit]

Lowering the price will not help much at all. There isn't a smooth gradient of people who will pay for an OS if it is 100$, or even 200$ cheaper. Rather, it is split between the people who will legitimately own the OS (less than a week's wages or something like that), or pirate it whether it costs 6000$, or 9.95$.

Remember how many people bitched and moaned over the 1.50$ download fee for Office 2007 Beta 2? You're getting the use of a freaking office suite for several months, for literally the cost of a bag of chips. But no, too expensive. That's what we see in the piracy world - people who simply aren't willing to pay, no matter how low the price is.

That is a pretty good point.

[revvo]

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:

Shows what you know :rolleyes:

First of all you're comparing the price of OSX with all the updates with a home version of Vista priced at $300 and not the Ultimate version priced at over $500 I think. Nice way of starting the comparison (N)

Updates like 10.2 10.3 10.4 are major updates, bigger of a deal than service packs. Each of them bring many new features to OSX, many more than any number of features that Microsoft has ever introduced into XP since it has seen the light until today. This is not fanboysim talking, I would never own a Mac because it's too pricy IMO and I wouldn't be able to do **** with it because I need dev tools like MS SQL and VS .Net. I'm definitely a PC guy but I won't hide the fact that Apple's updates to OSX are more feature-rich than Microsoft's.

What's free are the smaller but as important updates like 10.4.1 10.4.2, etc and they are frequently released

So don't come in here telling me OSX is worth $500-600. Service Pack 2 is an important pack and it is free, but it is nowhere comparable to the updates Apple releases every year or two. Service packs are a must to Windows, fixing an incredible number of bugs and securing the OS even more and in the case of SP2, add a few new bells and whistles that are quite useful to the end-user. SP2 is like a huge ass bandaid. Apple's updates are more like, a new spoiler to the civic. You don't need it, but it "might" do you some good if you need what it provides.

[chavo]

My OS can beat your OS up so there. Nanny nanny boo-boo!

This is what you kids sound like really. Get over it, use what you like and let the other guy do what he wants. Nothing wrong with a little choice in the world.

[revvo]

My OS can beat your OS up so there. Nanny nanny boo-boo!

This is what you kids sound like really. Get over it, use what you like and let the other guy do what he wants. Nothing wrong with a little choice in the world.

I agree, that is fine, except when you spread FUD and bs around the net and start praising a piece of software over another.

[ozgeek]

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.

They are designed to stop people sueing companies that enforce them. So in this case, you can't sue MS becasue their software calls home because it states in their rights which when you install the software decide to accept that they have the right to do whatever it says in the agreements.

Well, try to take MS to court and I'm sure they will kick your lawsuit out because you accepted to face the fact that MS have the right to install software on your computer as stated in their EULA. It also says if you don't want that, you shouldn't be installing the software in the first place and return it and get a refund for it.

EULA, contracts, agreements are designed by companies, not just Microsoft, to prevent people from sueing them for silly things like installing software to check if it is geniune.

[Pallab]

I dont think its gonna work. They said a lot of things about WGA too.

Onlu thing is that, this shouldnt misfire and trouble users who purchased legit versions.

[whitebread]

Wouldn't that be considered Spyware? *gets ready for lawsuit*

Well, anyone who owns the system wouldn't have anything to worry about. I don't see it being an issue.

[MrCobra]

Vista will be pirated and those that use the pirated versions will have nothing to worry about. Just like with XP the extra piracy measures will be defeated. The price of Vista isn't going to help matters either. They spends billions to combat piracy and it does no good. All it accomplishes is higher cost for the user. Price is always a factor.

[Alan Zeino]

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

Uh, yeah, it's called Economics, and it does work. Lower prices, users won't be bothered pirating the OS if it's dirt cheap, piracy falls.

[xpablo]

Where ever there is something that people want to hack, people will find a way to circumvent Vista activation and open it up.

It just maybe a more difficult processs, But MS is making a big mistake with their pricing for Vista, it is too expensive , if they sold it for less, then there would be less reason too pirate it.

But of course greed kicks in as Mr G and Co want their ROI within the first year of Vista's release.

As an employee of a large computer corporation, I don't forsee Vista being implemented for at least the next 18 months after it's release.

[garbagestrike]

Uh, yeah, it's called Economics, and it does work. Lower prices, users won't be bothered pirating the OS if it's dirt cheap, piracy falls.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

oookkkaayyy. suuuurrreee.Like Relativity_17 said there are noobs bitching over the $1.50 price for Office 2007, what makes you think a steep discount will fix things at all?

[Osiris]

^^lol so where does it end? just because im not doing anything criminal doesnt mean id be okay with a government recording all my communications......anyway.

Lowering prices would only marginally reduce piracy and increase sales in the western world at least. The problem of piracy isnt so much its frequency in Australia, America, Europe etc but rather in China and asia or south america where the price of software is usually sold at a much lower price anyway, therefore further reductions aren't necessarily cost-effective.

Plus not withstanding at the end of the day Microsoft know the activation process will be cracked, look at WGA, change a few dll's over and off you go. And in zero sum turns if ppl can get away with paying $10 for a copy of software as opposed to $299 most of them will.

Its unfortunate that the losers from all of this are the ppl who do actually purchase the software; who end up firstly paying a higher cost, and secondly have to jump through hoops to use/update their products.

[excalpius]

Well, one simple point for me is that I won't be upgrading any of my machines to Vista. I'll buy a new desktop with it installed by default, but Vista doesn't offer ANYONE anything worth paying for on old hardware (re: anything from 2005 or earlier...ahem).

Secondly, if it really is going to call home regularly, I will have a legitimately purchased version on a new laptop or desktop that I buy, yet I will quite deliberately CRACK the "call-home" protection just because I shouldn't have to connect to the internet regularly just to use the software and hardware I have paid to use.

I don't register the software I buy as well. Anything and everything about ME is none of YOUR business...period.

So, sorry MS, one way or another you have already lost 12 upgrade sales of Vista for my XP machines, and any/all of my new machines will NOT be "phoning home" no matter what I have to do to keep you off my very private and personal consumer back.

In point of fact, I won't even buy those machines until I know I can run them without you knowing it. :)

[spedanden]

You guys are only mentioning the most expensive version of Vista. If some of you can't afford the Ultimate lifestyle, then lower yourself to your actual level... Basic.

[P.M.K]

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

I agree.

Shouldn't have a 30 day trial.

The 1st section of the installation should be activation. You don't active you don't install.

Simple.

[Maxious]

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.

But parts of EULAs are inapplicable under local contract laws. Microsoft even acknowledges this in the XP EULA:

"If any provision of this EULA is held to be void, invalid, unenforceable or illegal, the other provisions shall continue in full force and effect."

... so if taking your car away isn't allowed under local contract law, you *could* sue!

[Stunna]

Wouldn't that be considered Spyware? *gets ready for lawsuit*

Naw thats not spyware.

[Chode]

Oh boy, this is going to be epic.

In other words, Vista will constantly try to call back to Microsoft. What about the people with no internet? Are they off the chart?

Five years ago called, they want their dilemma. XP requires activation, and to account for those without an internet connection it is possible to activate via telephone. I guess this is prejudice against those without telephones though, and monitors, etc. I wonder if a person could complain that Vista won't activate WITHOUT a PC..

It's about **** time Microsoft stepped this up. But if they really want to stop piracy why give pirats a system at all? Why let them run "non-genuine" Windows with only a few things taken away? Why not block them entirely? YOu know what, you get a legit key you have no problems. You pirate, Microsoft doens't owe you ANYTHING.

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

This is to account for those who are sold what appear to be legitimate versions of Vista, but turn out to be pirated. This accounts for the majority of the "false positives" with WGA protection.

Another reason to laugh on MS :D

Yes, how dare they be a company trying to protect their investments. For shame! :sleep:

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

Monkeys, now? That's quite rude, considering that a number of these individuals are members of this forum...

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

You expect Microsoft to show off their full copy protection in beta versions of their OS? Riiiiight.

They should also increase the frequency if service packs. Service packs should be delivered each 6 months or so.

Service Packs are only a collection of hotfixes. What would be the benefit of repeatedly collecting the hotfixes together? Don't confuse XP Service Pack 2 as an indicator for what every service pack should be, SP2 was a MAJOR update to Windows XP.

So, I'm guessing that I'll have to buy one disc for every computer to install vista on? (one box = one license)

If that's the case, then if if the cheapest version will cost $100, and I want to get two of the ultimate versions for $200 each (figuratively speaking) then I'll have to spend $700! I can buy a new computer with that!

(of course, 4 of the computers came with XP already installed, and I had to install everything on my SFF computer)

Good bye Windows. Hello Linux.

1) Volume Licensing. Make it your friend.

2) Upgrade Editions. Make them even more of your friend.

You guys are only mentioning the most expensive version of Vista. If some of you can't afford the Ultimate lifestyle, then lower yourself to your actual level... Basic.

Well said. More people should acquaint themselves with the Vista Upgrade Advisor tool. For my personal needs on my home computer, Vista Home Premium is more than sufficient (Vista Home Basic perhaps if I can live without Vista Aero).

I agree.

Shouldn't have a 30 day trial.

The 1st section of the installation should be activation. You don't active you don't install.

Simple.

30 days leniency is good. Just in case a person really doesn't have access to the internet, or a phone, etc.

Though 15 days would be enough as well, or perhaps even a single week.

[filter04]

that's not a false positive... what you describe is someone being fooled into thinking that what they bought is legitimate, when in fact it is not.

A false positive, in the case of activation keys, is where a key that is legitimate is detected as being non-genuine.

and that is a pain in the arse.

[Leddy]

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!

While Mac OS X does indeed include the iWhatever series of applications, Microsoft is not allowed to include any extra applications into Windows for fear of antitrust lawsuit.

"User Friendliness" is a subjective concept and I find Mac OS X's interface hideous. Here's one example: the dock looks flash but is completely impractical, in my opinion. It can only hold so many applications before you'll have to start digging in your Programs window.

You can call Vista a POS. But I can call Mac OS X a POS, too.

[excalpius]

oh and the latest news is that this SPP code is made available to third party vendors for their software too.

um, anyone want to bet how long it takes some kid to hack this and shut down EVERYONE's Vista installation remotely and maliciously?

and to think, Microsoft is doing all of this for an operating system that even its biggest fans (like I used to be) aren't considering buying when it is released...

I'd sell my stock if I had any, haha.

[Blue_iced]

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)

Self-destruct in 5 seconds? Why would you destroy something that is already a pile of junk... ;) Buying the explosives is such a waste of money... :laugh:

[zipgenius]

agreed.. but you have to admit they have come a long way since the release of xp.... i have one genuine xp and one notsogenuine and just based on the trouble i have gone through to get around wga i will be buying 2 copies of vista when released....

Me too. I hope that Microsoft will offer a free/cheap upgrade for people that have bought "Vista Capable" PCs/notebooks (I bought an HP Pavilion dv2008ea and I am testing Vista x64: it's great and I will place Vista there for sure).

[Chode]

that's not a false positive... what you describe is someone being fooled into thinking that what they bought is legitimate, when in fact it is not.

A false positive, in the case of activation keys, is where a key that is legitimate is detected as being non-genuine.

and that is a pain in the arse.

I used false positive in quotation marks. I mean that the majority of cases where people claim that WGA has hit them with a false positive, that what's really happened is that they've unknowingly purchased a pirate version.

[Blue_iced]

They are designed to stop people sueing companies that enforce them. So in this case, you can't sue MS becasue their software calls home because it states in their rights which when you install the software decide to accept that they have the right to do whatever it says in the agreements.

I think you are mistaken on this. I agree to that guy who compared this to a putting something like murder in contract. If something is put into a contract that is not legit, then this contract is not valid. At least it is like this in many countries. Now the question is, is spyware defined in laws and how is it defined. For example, if in country A is said that any form of software that contacts a server without the user being able to control it is spyware, then the EULA is not valid and user is able to do pretty much everything with the software he wants. The problem here is that Microsoft always depends on the law of the country where the software is used. Do you really think that Microsoft has any chance of winning a lawsuite in China, if China says that the EULA is illegal. In Europe OSS is getting promote a lot and laws are made in favour of it, probably because more and more goverments are changing to OSS. Besides that the US government has less and less influences on the EU... And then I am pointing to the fine of July 2006, where the US tried to change the EU opinion into a more favourable one for Microsoft. I think that Microsoft should change its overall strategy. It is not a modern strategy anymore. They are trying to stick to the old days.