Vista's Tougher Anti-Piracy Feature

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
Price jump from Window 98 to Window xp is a pretty huge jump. And not Everyone buy a Dell. You are the one who is blind to the truth.

Blind huh?

Windows 98 SE released for a retail price of $109.
Windows XP home (consumer 9x/me OS replacement) is a $99 upgrade directly from MS.
A non-upgrade OEM copy from newegg is $89.99

However, XP was really the replacement for Windows 2000. The Windows 9x/ME line of operating systems was retired.
Windows 2000pro upgrade cost $219 (similar to NT)
XP pro OEM is currently $139 at newegg.

References:
http://news.com.com/2100-1040_3-225460.html
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/professional/howtobuy/pricing/default.asp
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductLi...368&Description=windows+xp+oem&Ntk=all
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/howtobuy/pricing.mspx
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductLi...368&Description=windows+xp+oem&Ntk=all

Remember the time when telephone company are allow to charge whatever they want? Remember the history class when they talk about the big company pay peanut to worker simply because there is no other place to work? The only reason microsoft is not jumping the price on vista is because there is an alternative.

So there was no alternative to XP when it released? Hmm... Why did the price not climb as illustrated above? Yet you say there is an alternative now and the price hasn't dropped? Maybe you just don't know jack about what it costs to develop software and provide support for it. The facts just are not on your side here.

Remember when ipod was expensive? That was because there was nothing like it on the market at that time. If the alternative is gone, and microsft can list whatever they want because it will become the standard and people either keep up or perish.

again your faulty logic. There were alternatives available to the iPod when it was released. The iPod is expensive because it's well marketed and "cool". There are even MORE alternatives to the iPod now but the price hasn't dropped. How do you explain that with your oil-baron monopoly price logic? Your oversimplified example does not apply here.

The piracy issue was a lot less serious back in window 98 era simply because the price is quite afford to everyday people.

As I already demonstrated the price of Windows 98 (especially in 1998 dollars) was actually higher. Furthermore there was less piracy not because of a price difference but because internet piracy was not as rampant and the overseas CD/DVD piracy had not yet reached the peak it's at today.

And you got no right to call me a thief, I got legal version of 98, xp and soon vista, so spare me of your rightous crap and think for a monent.

I did not call you a thief although I will say your reading skills border on illiteracy. I responded to your comment:

...the alternative IS the pirate version of the window

by saying

..the solution is to be nothing more than a common thief.

. Was there something in my retort that did not fit your statement? That's a comfy shoe you are wearing.

And technically, it is not legal to run more than a copy of window xp on a computer at one time, if you do, you are no better than the thief you describe.

Who said it WAS legal to do this? Perhaps you mistook the word "program" for the wrong homograph. When I say there are "programs" to run a 2nd copy cheaply I do not mean "applications" to run a second copy cheaply. I mean there are offerings from MS itself: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/howtobuy/addlic.mspx

 

[stash]

And not Everyone buy a Dell

You do know that the overwhelming majority of copies of Windows are sold with a new computer, right? Like over 90%. 5-10% of almost a billion is still a lot, but in the grand scheme of things, the number of people buying retail is tiny.

 

[smp]

Microsoft wants to make money?
That's a surprise.
The common man wants to make money too .. which could mean spending less. So, if you can get your OS for 'free', well then you're just doing what is in your best interest, no?

I'm just throwing that out to play devils advocate. I do agree with the sentiment that MS is competing (as in market competition) with pirates, there is some logic there.

 

[passwordforgetterguy]

Originally posted by: smp
Microsoft wants to make money?
That's a surprise.
The common man wants to make money too .. which could mean spending less. So, if you can get your OS for 'free', well then you're just doing what is in your best interest, no?

I'm just throwing that out to play devils advocate. I do agree with the sentiment that MS is competing (as in market competition) with pirates, there is some logic there.

Hm. There are things of interest besides money. Like the law (and consequences).

MS abusing monopoly power and jacking up prices would certainly earn money but break the law. Someone stealing things would certainly save them money but would also break the law.

 

[Pythias]

Originally posted by: passwordforgetterguy

Originally posted by: smp
Microsoft wants to make money?
That's a surprise.
The common man wants to make money too .. which could mean spending less. So, if you can get your OS for 'free', well then you're just doing what is in your best interest, no?

I'm just throwing that out to play devils advocate. I do agree with the sentiment that MS is competing (as in market competition) with pirates, there is some logic there.

Hm. There are things of interest besides money. Like the law (and consequences).

MS abusing monopoly power and jacking up prices would certainly earn money but break the law. Someone stealing things would certainly save them money but would also break the law.

What frigging monopoly? 67567908650685089 flavors of linux, unix, and bsd. There are plenty of options.

I guess ford has a monopoly on mustangs. =)

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: Pythias

Originally posted by: passwordforgetterguy

Originally posted by: smp
Microsoft wants to make money?
That's a surprise.
The common man wants to make money too .. which could mean spending less. So, if you can get your OS for 'free', well then you're just doing what is in your best interest, no?

I'm just throwing that out to play devils advocate. I do agree with the sentiment that MS is competing (as in market competition) with pirates, there is some logic there.

Hm. There are things of interest besides money. Like the law (and consequences).

MS abusing monopoly power and jacking up prices would certainly earn money but break the law. Someone stealing things would certainly save them money but would also break the law.

What frigging monopoly? 67567908650685089 flavors of linux, unix, and bsd. There are plenty of options.

I guess ford has a monopoly on mustangs. =)

If 90% of the cars on the road were Mustangs, and Ford kept forcing changes in road construction so only Mustangs could drive on the newest roads, then yeah some people might call that a monopoly.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Brazen
If 90% of the cars on the road were Mustangs, and Ford kept forcing changes in road construction so only Mustangs could drive on the newest roads, then yeah some people might call that a monopoly.

The analogy is getting stretched pretty thin

Please elaborate on the "forcing changes in road construction" part.

I'm thinking you are meaning roads=PC hardware? If so, I'm not sure where MS is changing road construction here.

 

[Pythias]

Right over his head.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Pythias

If 90% of the cars on the road were Mustangs, and Ford kept forcing changes in road construction so only Mustangs could drive on the newest roads, then yeah some people might call that a monopoly.

Right over his head.

Yep. Not ashamed either. The chewbacca defense makes more sense.

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Brazen
If 90% of the cars on the road were Mustangs, and Ford kept forcing changes in road construction so only Mustangs could drive on the newest roads, then yeah some people might call that a monopoly.

The analogy is getting stretched pretty thin

Please elaborate on the "forcing changes in road construction" part.

I'm thinking you are meaning roads=PC hardware? If so, I'm not sure where MS is changing road construction here.

The "forcing changes" wasn't meant to be a direct analogy to any specific act by Microsoft, and maybe "influencing changes (to the point that resistance would be futile)" is a better way of putting it. My thought though was in regards to the way Microsoft does not adhere to standards (such as using bastardized versions of LDAP or CSS in Active Direcotr or Internet Explorer, respectively) so that standards-compliant tools do not work well with Microsoft components.

So call it was a stretch. So what?

 

[extra]

Countdown vista official release's activation being cracked by pirates... 3...2...1

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Brazen

The "forcing changes" wasn't meant to be a direct analogy to any specific act by Microsoft, and maybe "influencing changes (to the point that resistance would be futile)" is a better way of putting it. My thought though was in regards to the way Microsoft does not adhere to standards (such as using bastardized versions of LDAP or CSS in Active Direcotr or Internet Explorer, respectively) so that standards-compliant tools do not work well with Microsoft components.

So call it was a stretch. So what?[/quote]

A stretched analogy is ok...you had just lost me there for a sec. Thanks for the clarification.

I'm sure Ford would love special roads made just for mustangs but it won't happen. Same with MS. LDAP is cute, but I don't see MS holding back innovation while they wait for it to catch up. This doesn't mean others can't use the roads...you just aren't going to get as much benifit from the racing surface as you would if you used the Mustang with the newly developed tires.

AD is not LDAP. It has some LDAP compatibility sure, but it's not LDAP and it is only marginally important that it maintain any LDAP compatibility. Compatibility and standards are far more important in other areas. Radius servers for instance...they are designed to be the glue between dissimilar authentication systems. DNS is another example. MS DNS servers are 100% RFC compliant...because it's important.

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: Smilin

A stretched analogy is ok...you had just lost me there for a sec. Thanks for the clarification.

Eh, sorry, I tried to keep the analogy brief since it was OT and just kidding around anyway.

I'm sure Ford would love special roads made just for mustangs but it won't happen. Same with MS. LDAP is cute, but I don't see MS holding back innovation while they wait for it to catch up. This doesn't mean others can't use the roads...you just aren't going to get as much benifit from the racing surface as you would if you used the Mustang with the newly developed tires.

AD is not LDAP. It has some LDAP compatibility sure, but it's not LDAP and it is only marginally important that it maintain any LDAP compatibility. Compatibility and standards are far more important in other areas. Radius servers for instance...they are designed to be the glue between dissimilar authentication systems. DNS is another example. MS DNS servers are 100% RFC compliant...because it's important.

DNS IS a good example. AD would not play nice with a standard Bind DNS server. Corporations who had ran rock solid Bind DNS server for years (either with NT4 domains, Novell, or whatever) had to either use hacks or switch to Microsoft's infant DNS servers in order to use AD.

 

[Pythias]

Why should microsoft have to make it easy for its competitors? Maybe Coke should sue pepsico for not selling Coca-Cola at any of its franchises ala Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, and KFC? Its teh ebil monopoly! The Colonel must be stopped. I can see smug the look in his wee beady eyes "Your Gontae buy ma chicken oh oooooo!"

 

[stash]

DNS IS a good example. AD would not play nice with a standard Bind DNS server. Corporations who had ran rock solid Bind DNS server for years (either with NT4 domains, Novell, or whatever) had to either use hacks or switch to Microsoft's infant DNS servers in order to use AD.

That has nothing to do with Microsoft's DNS. To support AD, your DNS has to support SRV records, which is not breaking any rules. The fact that older versions of BIND didn't is irrevelant. And upgrading to a version of BIND that does SRV records is not a hack.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Brazen
DNS IS a good example. AD would not play nice with a standard Bind DNS server. Corporations who had ran rock solid Bind DNS server for years (either with NT4 domains, Novell, or whatever) had to either use hacks or switch to Microsoft's infant DNS servers in order to use AD.

AD plays VERY nice with any RFC compliant DNS server (bind or otherwise). If a corporation was running a (basically RFC outdated) BIND 4.x server I'm sure they had trouble. That would be their fault for not using standards, not MS. MS DNS servers are *100%* RFC compliant at this time.

Most bind problems come in because of two combined problems:
1. The servers are not configured to support dynamic updates.
2. The bind admin does not properly populate the SRV records needed for AD by hand.

Bind admins are typically inexperienced with AD but that is to be expected. Windows admins are typically inexperienced with Bind.

 

[Smilin]

DNS aside, allow me to concede this..

(my personal opinion here..)

MS is going to follow standards whenever it can out of self-interest. Standards mean lower costs and happy customers. In the long term that means money for MS in one form or another. However MS would be unwise to be actually held back by standards. MS R&D budget is a monster and moves forward faster than standards can be adopted. Because of sheer numbers, anything MS does is almost a standard the moment they implement it. They will try at every opportunity to make new innovations a superset of existing standards (AD vs LDAP for example) rather than break existing ones and they do pretty well at this.

If everyone had to conform to every standard out there the world wouldn't move forward. Remember, someone had to break standards when they sold the first telephone...

 

[Xellos2099]

Microsoft create standard... maybe, but remember the time people rejected Window me and stick with 98 instead.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
Microsoft create standard... maybe, but remember the time people rejected Window me and stick with 98 instead.

mmm... I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't like Windows ME.
err... I mean no comment.

I was really an NT guy at the time but running 98se at home. As soon as NT 5.0 released (w2k) I went that route. NT has always been the bomb but NT 4.0 just wasn't compatible with my gaming habits.

I've little to no ME experience.


Edit: There have been other 'standards' that failed as well of course. Anyone remember "channels" in IE 4.0 back during the browser wars?

 

[Doom Machine]

people rejected winME cause they coudlnt tell what the difference was between that and 98.

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: Doom Machine
people rejected winME cause they coudlnt tell what the difference was between that and 98.

The difference was pretty obvious. Win98 worked and WinMe didn't.

 

[Xellos2099]

Most people i know stick with 98 till xp come out. There is a really different between 98 and me... 98 come in a blue box, Me coem in a white box, pun intended Of course i know window 2000 is a very stable and good os, but not enough support for entertainment.

The truth is, microsft create most of the standard pc's standard, sure soem people use linux and such, but like or not, window is in 99% of the pc. By january, all new pc from dell and hp will be shipping in vista rather they like it or not. The main question remain, will people embrase vista as second coming of gaming heaven because of the dx 10, or will people reject it as Me and lable it as trash.

 

[Smilin]

I think Vista is the greatest OS that MS has made while I think ME is...uh.

Lost my train of thought.

Oh yeah... no comment

 

[Pythias]

Originally posted by: RebateMonger

Originally posted by: Doom Machine
people rejected winME cause they coudlnt tell what the difference was between that and 98.

The difference was pretty obvious. Win98 worked and WinMe didn't.

Ouch! :laugh:

 

[blimey]

This Vista activation scheme may be a real drag for tech enthusiasts who like to play with new motherboards a lot. I purchased two retail XP licenses (one each for desktop and laptop).

I never use the one for my desktop because I tend to swap out the motherboard every couple of months and the XP activation server choked after the fourth activation on a different motherboard. I now use a VL XP disk in order to forgo activation, but I still consider my installation licensed because I can't use the copy that I purchased (without a lot of telephone calls to activate and re-activate).

I may be in the small percentage of users that MS doesn't care about, but unless there is a way around activation in Vista, it will be no fun for me. I suppose I can just call MS a lot, but they do give you a hard time after multiple activations.