Windows XP SP1 Will Not Install on Known Pirated Installations

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: HendrixFan

"Finally, it is indicative of monopoly power that Microsoft felt that it had substantial discretion in setting the price of its Windows 98 upgrade product (the operating system product it sells to existing users of Windows 95). A Microsoft study from November 1997 reveals that the company could have charged $49 for an upgrade to Windows 98 ? there is no reason to believe that the $49 price would have been unprofitable ? but the study identifies $89 as the revenue-maximizing price. Microsoft thus opted for the higher price."

Now these are FACTS in the case, and the findings of fact were completely upheld by the appellate court.

Isn't part of the point of running a business to make profit????????? I mean, if you can charge $89 for a piece of software, why not??? I remember paying $89.95 for the Windows 95 upgrade when it FIRST came out in August of '95. Did I bitch, nope...not one bit.

Companies are out to make a buck. GM and Ford make upwards of $8,000 to $9,000 profit on their Suburbans, Escalades, Navigators, and Expeditions. Could they be profitable by making a $5,000 profit on the vehicles, sure...but they price it at what the market can bare.

I sure as hell wouldn't sell something on Ebay for a "Buy it Now" price of $49.95 if I knew I could get $90 for it.

 

[HendrixFan]

I guess you didnt get the context of that quote. The entire document "findings of fact" is on the DOJ page if you want to read it.

What that snippet shows is that MS can dictate pricing on their OS arbitrarily. Going for profit, staying on margins are things you do in a competitive marketplace. As a monopoly, they are free to charge over twice the "profitable" amount for their OS upgrade.

Essentially, it was a key part of the "pricing" facts of the case, in which Microsoft was unable to effectively show that they were indeed in a competitive marketplace. Operative word is "competitive" of course, since we are dealing with a monopoly.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: HendrixFan

"Finally, it is indicative of monopoly power that Microsoft felt that it had substantial discretion in setting the price of its Windows 98 upgrade product (the operating system product it sells to existing users of Windows 95). A Microsoft study from November 1997 reveals that the company could have charged $49 for an upgrade to Windows 98 ? there is no reason to believe that the $49 price would have been unprofitable ? but the study identifies $89 as the revenue-maximizing price. Microsoft thus opted for the higher price."

Now these are FACTS in the case, and the findings of fact were completely upheld by the appellate court.

Isn't part of the point of running a business to make profit????????? I mean, if you can charge $89 for a piece of software, why not??? I remember paying $89.95 for the Windows 95 upgrade when it FIRST came out in August of '95. Did I bitch, nope...not one bit.

Companies are out to make a buck. GM and Ford make upwards of $8,000 to $9,000 profit on their Suburbans, Escalades, Navigators, and Expeditions. Could they be profitable by making a $5,000 profit on the vehicles, sure...but they price it at what the market can bare.

I sure as hell wouldn't sell something on Ebay for a "Buy it Now" price of $49.95 if I knew I could get $90 for it.

no, but its the ability to set the profit maximizing price that determines the type of market. ford has to remain competitive with GM which has to remain competitive with chrysler which has to remain competitive with toyota etc. and on ebay you're a price taker. you can't expect to get much higher/lower price than previous and current auctions for the same/similar product. MS has only the demand to deal with. they don't have to watch out for someone else's manuever because no other product exists in the relevant market.

 

[slpaulson]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Good. Hopefully that will force a few people to actually purchase the software they use.

Only if Microsoft lowers the damn cost.....

BMW's are expensive. Does that mean that we should all go steal BMW's?

We don't have to drive a BMW to go on 90% of the roads.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

More crap. Please name one proffession in which the job cannot be done on a non-windows OS or a Mac. Just one.

You ignore the fact that many businesses and government agencies do not allow IT managers to make primary purchasing decisions. Even if they could they would then be restricted to an approved list of vendors. MS sticks it to a captive audience b/c they can . . . if you refuse monopoly let's try monopolistic influence.

WTF does this have to do with the price of tea in China???

NOTHING is up to the IT managers, it's up to the boards, CEOs, and department managers what OSes to run. If they choose MS, that's THEIR choice. This does not negate the fact that they can get the SAME JOB DONE WITH ANOTHER OS.

Win95 was not good. Win98 was better. Win98SE umm a little better. NT4 nice. 2000 very nice. ME sux. XP pretty good. MS coerces businesses to upgrade by manipulating support for OS and manipulating programmers by fiat. But they do have a right to try to protect their intellectual property.

Every business upgrades and releases new products. Do you drive a 1912 model T? Will Ford still support a 1912 Model T?

Other OSes exist that can do everything any business needs to do. Therefore MS is not a monopoly.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: cRazYdood

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Good. Hopefully that will force a few people to actually purchase the software they use.

Only if Microsoft lowers the damn cost.....

BMW's are expensive. Does that mean that we should all go steal BMW's?

We don't have to drive a BMW to go on 90% of the roads.

You don't need to buy Windows XP to run 90% of the applications available.

 

[HendrixFan]

"Other OSes exist that can do everything any business needs to do. Therefore MS is not a monopoly."

If that was the case, why didnt Microsoft's team of lawyers simply state that in their case?

I think you are SEVERELY abusing the word monopoly in your statement.

Here is the findings of fact which sould explain it all for you:

http://usvms.gpo.gov/findfact.html

 

[OutHouse]

ahhhh the advantages of being a Microsoft Select customer...

 

[Miramonti]

Everyone who has an illegal installation can go out and buy a legal copy for $140, but then again they wouldn't get the pleasure of screwing M$ out of their monopoly money would they.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: HendrixFan
"Other OSes exist that can do everything any business needs to do. Therefore MS is not a monopoly."

If that was the case, why didnt Microsoft's team of lawyers simply state that in their case?

I think you are SEVERELY abusing the word monopoly in your statement.

Here is the findings of fact which sould explain it all for you:

http://usvms.gpo.gov/findfact.html

Abusing the word monopoly? WTF???

I gave the websters definition, which shows that a monopoly MUST have exclusivity to be a monopoly. You cannot be able to get the service or goods anywhere else.

There ARE viable alternatives to MS OSes, therefore it is not a monopoly. People on these boards using other OSes and being able to get their work done, not to mention post here are living proof of this.

Hendrix, I disagree with the court's findings. You cannot use the court's findings to support itself, that is circular logic. It's like using the bible to prove the bible is true.

"Fact" by "fact" in this finding is laughably untrue, and is disproven by the very Linux users on this board.

 

[schizoid]

What bugs me is, what are the alternatives?

So there's this guy, bitching about how much MS software is, and how he needs it to run 90% of whatever his company needs to run. So the government steps in. Splits up MS.

Uhhh...ok. Now what?

Do you still run MS? Course you do there, bigshot.

What, is the government supposed to mandate some other company to make an OS, just "cuz"? And when they do, do they have to make Adobe, Norton and Oracle port their software to this new os?

Seriously...what are your alternatives? You probably don't have a problem with MS being MS (other than the whole "alternative" notion of chique MS hating)...what you have a problem is paying X amount of dollars for MS software. You probably just wish it was cheaper.

There's lots of things I wish were cheaper, yo.

Seriously though...I don't really understand the alternatives here. So, if one was to concede every single point about MS being a monopoly and a horrible buisness and yada yada yada...so what? Solution, anyone?

Or are we just bitching?

What MS did to Netscape was pretty bad (although I'd have to say that round about IE 4, it was simply a better browser). But so what? That's a broswer! It's not an OS. And it's FREE anyways. So, let's say MS hadn't done that. Would your 90% of buisness apps be able to run on Next all the sudden? Don't think so....

 

[yakko]

Originally posted by: dullard
Good. Hopefully that will force a few people to actually purchase the software they use.

I do have a legit copy because I included its cost in a system build I did instead of profit but I like the coporate because I do not have to register it.

 

[Bluga]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Good. Hopefully that will force a few people to actually purchase the software they use.

Only if Microsoft lowers the damn cost.....

If more people actually purchased it, Microsoft could lower the cost without hurting their bottom line...

ya right

 

[ed21x]

if you're a student, chances are, you can go to a microsoft expo, and get all the software for free LEGALLY.

 

[ed21x]

if you think of all the stuff you get with windows (browser, media player, etc...), its actually quite a bargain. the price of two computer games for an entire OS... some of you guys are just plain cheap.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: rh71
<obvious to some, but what the hell> Pirates try harder when they are challenged. Most of them probably don't do it because they need what they're cracking. </obvious to some, but what the hell>

SP1 crack is already out.

The online manuals on how to change the serial on a running version of Windows XP, as well as where to find a working keygenerator have been around for over half a year already.

 

[NogginBoink]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: shinerburke
The amount we pay is MUCH higher than that. Plus it only covers base versions of the software like Win2k Pro & Win2k server for example. You want to install Advanced Server or DataCenter Server and it's an extra charge. Same goes for SQL, Office, etc, etc, etc......

Sorry I didn't clarify, we get the education discount. So this is probably better than what a normal business can use. But the fact still remains, that Microsoft does give discounts for legitimate businesses.

If you're using academic licensed product in a production environment, you're going against the license agreement and are therefore pirating and your software use is not, in fact, legal.

 

[NogginBoink]

Originally posted by: ed21x
if you think of all the stuff you get with windows (browser, media player, etc...), its actually quite a bargain. the price of two computer games for an entire OS... some of you guys are just plain cheap.

Damn! Finally, a post that makes sense!

Folks, the desktop OS has grown in features and capability over the years by leaps and bounds. With MS operating systems, you can easily perform tasks that were simply unimagined a few years ago. Think of all the time you spend at your computer, and all the functionality that the OS gives you. Think of all the things you do at your computer. Do your really, honestly, believe that that functionality is overpriced at $200?

For all the things MS OSes let me do, I'd honestly say that the value of the software to me is probably in the thousands of dollars range. Granted, I don't have thousands of dollars, and given a choice I'd use a less capable OS than spend thousands of dollars on MS OSes, but man oh man! The things that XP lets me do! Two hundred bucks is a BARGAIN for this software!

MS OSes cost too much for your business? Examine the productivity and the revenue your company generates from using these OSes. Can you honestly say that the money isn't worth it?

You say your company is forced to use MS OSes? Hogwash! Your company made a business decision to use MS products due to business needs. You CAN use other OSes. You can get or write custom business apps for Linux. But for many companies, it's cheaper in the long run to use MS OSes and buy shrinkwrapped software than to do that. So MS software is cheaper than the alternatives. Maybe it costs more than you'd like, but it's still cheaper than the alternatives.

Yes, I've pirated software in the past, even MS OSes. But I couldn't tell you that MS OSes are overpriced and keep a straight face. Given the features and capabilities of MS OSes, I think they're dirt cheap.

It amazes me that someone will spend $20, $30, $50, whatver on a dinner that lasts 30 minues, but claim that an OS that provides years of functionality and productivity is overpriced at $200.

Get real.

 

[NogginBoink]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: cRazYdood

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Good. Hopefully that will force a few people to actually purchase the software they use.

Only if Microsoft lowers the damn cost.....

BMW's are expensive. Does that mean that we should all go steal BMW's?

We don't have to drive a BMW to go on 90% of the roads.

You don't need to buy Windows XP to run 90% of the applications available.

You don't need to run 90% of the applications available. So what's your point?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: NogginBoink

Originally posted by: ed21x
if you think of all the stuff you get with windows (browser, media player, etc...), its actually quite a bargain. the price of two computer games for an entire OS... some of you guys are just plain cheap.

Damn! Finally, a post that makes sense!

Folks, the desktop OS has grown in features and capability over the years by leaps and bounds. With MS operating systems, you can easily perform tasks that were simply unimagined a few years ago. Think of all the time you spend at your computer, and all the functionality that the OS gives you. Think of all the things you do at your computer. Do your really, honestly, believe that that functionality is overpriced at $200?

For all the things MS OSes let me do, I'd honestly say that the value of the software to me is probably in the thousands of dollars range. Granted, I don't have thousands of dollars, and given a choice I'd use a less capable OS than spend thousands of dollars on MS OSes, but man oh man! The things that XP lets me do! Two hundred bucks is a BARGAIN for this software!

MS OSes cost too much for your business? Examine the productivity and the revenue your company generates from using these OSes. Can you honestly say that the money isn't worth it?

You say your company is forced to use MS OSes? Hogwash! Your company made a business decision to use MS products due to business needs. You CAN use other OSes. You can get or write custom business apps for Linux. But for many companies, it's cheaper in the long run to use MS OSes and buy shrinkwrapped software than to do that. So MS software is cheaper than the alternatives. Maybe it costs more than you'd like, but it's still cheaper than the alternatives.

Yes, I've pirated software in the past, even MS OSes. But I couldn't tell you that MS OSes are overpriced and keep a straight face. Given the features and capabilities of MS OSes, I think they're dirt cheap.

It amazes me that someone will spend $20, $30, $50, whatver on a dinner that lasts 30 minues, but claim that an OS that provides years of functionality and productivity is overpriced at $200.

Get real.

Well said. And your point is even more valid considering that XP can be had for $90 (home) and $139 (pro) from Newegg.

Folks here who spend $300 on a video card that lasts them a year until their next upgrade bitch about a $90 OS that lasts them 3 years or so.

 

[GermyBoy]

Thankfully I use a good operating system. Win2k.

 

[LikeLinus]

shinerburke - Why exactly are you complaining that MS charges your company to keep your company up and running? You realize you'd be out of a job if it weren't for MS (because you say your company can't run without windows developed applications).

Lets go the other way. Say your company decides to run Linux and Unix servers. Your company would have to retrain every single computer user throughout your company, hire on a new IT staff that can deploy and maintain a Linux/Unix domain. They would also have the cost of the man hours of deploying these OS's and applications. Lost work hours, paying people to do all this work. They they have to find a whole new suite of applicaitions (if there even are any) that will run on Linux. Then they have to take the man hours to port the old data from SQL/Whatever into your Linux version of the application.

And you're complaining that MS gives your company the ability to make a ton of money and keep you in a job?

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: NogginBoink

Originally posted by: ed21x
if you think of all the stuff you get with windows (browser, media player, etc...), its actually quite a bargain. the price of two computer games for an entire OS... some of you guys are just plain cheap.

Damn! Finally, a post that makes sense!

Folks, the desktop OS has grown in features and capability over the years by leaps and bounds. With MS operating systems, you can easily perform tasks that were simply unimagined a few years ago. Think of all the time you spend at your computer, and all the functionality that the OS gives you. Think of all the things you do at your computer. Do your really, honestly, believe that that functionality is overpriced at $200?

For all the things MS OSes let me do, I'd honestly say that the value of the software to me is probably in the thousands of dollars range. Granted, I don't have thousands of dollars, and given a choice I'd use a less capable OS than spend thousands of dollars on MS OSes, but man oh man! The things that XP lets me do! Two hundred bucks is a BARGAIN for this software!

MS OSes cost too much for your business? Examine the productivity and the revenue your company generates from using these OSes. Can you honestly say that the money isn't worth it?

You say your company is forced to use MS OSes? Hogwash! Your company made a business decision to use MS products due to business needs. You CAN use other OSes. You can get or write custom business apps for Linux. But for many companies, it's cheaper in the long run to use MS OSes and buy shrinkwrapped software than to do that. So MS software is cheaper than the alternatives. Maybe it costs more than you'd like, but it's still cheaper than the alternatives.

Yes, I've pirated software in the past, even MS OSes. But I couldn't tell you that MS OSes are overpriced and keep a straight face. Given the features and capabilities of MS OSes, I think they're dirt cheap.

It amazes me that someone will spend $20, $30, $50, whatver on a dinner that lasts 30 minues, but claim that an OS that provides years of functionality and productivity is overpriced at $200.

Get real.

Well said. And your point is even more valid considering that XP can be had for $90 (home) and $139 (pro) from Newegg.

Folks here who spend $300 on a video card that lasts them a year until their next upgrade bitch about a $90 OS that lasts them 3 years or so.

I agree 100%. Great post.

 

[Adul]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: NogginBoink

Originally posted by: ed21x
if you think of all the stuff you get with windows (browser, media player, etc...), its actually quite a bargain. the price of two computer games for an entire OS... some of you guys are just plain cheap.

Damn! Finally, a post that makes sense!

Folks, the desktop OS has grown in features and capability over the years by leaps and bounds. With MS operating systems, you can easily perform tasks that were simply unimagined a few years ago. Think of all the time you spend at your computer, and all the functionality that the OS gives you. Think of all the things you do at your computer. Do your really, honestly, believe that that functionality is overpriced at $200?

For all the things MS OSes let me do, I'd honestly say that the value of the software to me is probably in the thousands of dollars range. Granted, I don't have thousands of dollars, and given a choice I'd use a less capable OS than spend thousands of dollars on MS OSes, but man oh man! The things that XP lets me do! Two hundred bucks is a BARGAIN for this software!

MS OSes cost too much for your business? Examine the productivity and the revenue your company generates from using these OSes. Can you honestly say that the money isn't worth it?

You say your company is forced to use MS OSes? Hogwash! Your company made a business decision to use MS products due to business needs. You CAN use other OSes. You can get or write custom business apps for Linux. But for many companies, it's cheaper in the long run to use MS OSes and buy shrinkwrapped software than to do that. So MS software is cheaper than the alternatives. Maybe it costs more than you'd like, but it's still cheaper than the alternatives.

Yes, I've pirated software in the past, even MS OSes. But I couldn't tell you that MS OSes are overpriced and keep a straight face. Given the features and capabilities of MS OSes, I think they're dirt cheap.

It amazes me that someone will spend $20, $30, $50, whatver on a dinner that lasts 30 minues, but claim that an OS that provides years of functionality and productivity is overpriced at $200.

Get real.

Well said. And your point is even more valid considering that XP can be had for $90 (home) and $139 (pro) from Newegg.

Folks here who spend $300 on a video card that lasts them a year until their next upgrade bitch about a $90 OS that lasts them 3 years or so.

I agree 100%. Great post.

Just sell me a stripped down os with out the extra stuff and I'll be happy

 

[Adul]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: NogginBoink

Originally posted by: ed21x
if you think of all the stuff you get with windows (browser, media player, etc...), its actually quite a bargain. the price of two computer games for an entire OS... some of you guys are just plain cheap.

Damn! Finally, a post that makes sense!

Folks, the desktop OS has grown in features and capability over the years by leaps and bounds. With MS operating systems, you can easily perform tasks that were simply unimagined a few years ago. Think of all the time you spend at your computer, and all the functionality that the OS gives you. Think of all the things you do at your computer. Do your really, honestly, believe that that functionality is overpriced at $200?

For all the things MS OSes let me do, I'd honestly say that the value of the software to me is probably in the thousands of dollars range. Granted, I don't have thousands of dollars, and given a choice I'd use a less capable OS than spend thousands of dollars on MS OSes, but man oh man! The things that XP lets me do! Two hundred bucks is a BARGAIN for this software!

MS OSes cost too much for your business? Examine the productivity and the revenue your company generates from using these OSes. Can you honestly say that the money isn't worth it?

You say your company is forced to use MS OSes? Hogwash! Your company made a business decision to use MS products due to business needs. You CAN use other OSes. You can get or write custom business apps for Linux. But for many companies, it's cheaper in the long run to use MS OSes and buy shrinkwrapped software than to do that. So MS software is cheaper than the alternatives. Maybe it costs more than you'd like, but it's still cheaper than the alternatives.

Yes, I've pirated software in the past, even MS OSes. But I couldn't tell you that MS OSes are overpriced and keep a straight face. Given the features and capabilities of MS OSes, I think they're dirt cheap.

It amazes me that someone will spend $20, $30, $50, whatver on a dinner that lasts 30 minues, but claim that an OS that provides years of functionality and productivity is overpriced at $200.

Get real.

Well said. And your point is even more valid considering that XP can be had for $90 (home) and $139 (pro) from Newegg.

Folks here who spend $300 on a video card that lasts them a year until their next upgrade bitch about a $90 OS that lasts them 3 years or so.

I agree 100%. Great post.

Just sell me a stripped down os with out the extra stuff and I'll be happy