Windows XP SP1 Will Not Install on Known Pirated Installations

[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

 

[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

 

[Adul]

wtf?

How did I do 6 posts with one click.

mmm the power of nef is strong

 

[pulse8]

Originally posted by: Adul
wtf?

How did I do 6 posts with one click.

mmm the power of nef is strang

The force is strong in this one.

*cue music*

 

[shiner]

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

Well actually I work for a non profit hospital.

As for why it makes me mad that they charge so much? Well it's because they know you are for the most part screwed once you have become dependant on them and the keep thier prices artificially high.

 

[NogginBoink]

As for why it makes me mad that they charge so much? Well it's because they know you are for the most part screwed once you have become dependant on them and the keep thier prices artificially high.

Ever had to buy a dealer part for your car?

 

[shiner]

Ever had to buy a dealer part for your car?

Only rarely. Most times you can buy aftermarket parts that work just as well. Also car dealships don't force an upgrade on you every few years.

 

[MistaTastyCakes]

I'm with Adul.. if only there was an XP that came without the Media Player and all that extra crap It's not like people have never heard of MSN.. why shove it in our faces?

Oh well People seem to pirate because they can, and people like free stuff. No amount of convincing or silly metaphors can really change that fact.. I'm not advocating a thing here, just stating the whole argument is kinda redundant

Hehe.. and if anyone thinks their offices are bad, we run off of 2 Gateways running an unpatched Windows 98, I believe. Guess it works fine for what we do (mainly Telnet and Hyperterminal) but sheesh.. hehe

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Ever had to buy a dealer part for your car?

Only rarely. Most times you can buy aftermarkey parts that work just as well. Also car dealships don't force an upgrade on you every few years.

They don't? What model year car do you drive?

 

[shiner]

They don't? What model year car do you drive?

2000 Dodge Durango (Original owner)
1987 Chevrolet Silverado Pickup (Bought it from my Dad)
1988 Monte Carlo SS(Original owner)
1972 Oldsmobile 442 (Restored from the ground up)

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

They don't? What model year car do you drive?

2000 Dodge Durango (Original owner)
1987 Chevrolet Silverado Pickup (Bought it from my Dad)
1988 Monte Carlo SS(Original owner)
1972 Oldsmobile 442 (Restored from the ground up)

And the same reason your family doesn't drive the very first car your parents or grandparents bought is the reason you don't use DOS as your OS. The only difference is the computer hardware, software and OS industry is advancing much faster than the automotive industry.

Sure, you can run your first OS, and probably do almost everything you NEED to do on it. But you upgrade because you WANT to. You don't really NEED to.

Do you upgrade hardware? Do you believe Intel is ripping you off because they are ramping up their processor speeds?

 

[shiner]

Sure, you can run your first OS, and probably do almost everything you NEED to do on it. But you upgrade because you WANT to. You don't really NEED to.

Go back and read my posts. I'm talking about a work environment here. We are required to upgrade or lose support. Also we get it forced down our throat thanks to application developers who only develop Win based apps.

Plus with a car they don't become incompatible with roads after they get to be 4-5 years old. As for Intel? Well they are just as bad. Thank God AMD offers a cheaper alternative.

 

[NogginBoink]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Sure, you can run your first OS, and probably do almost everything you NEED to do on it. But you upgrade because you WANT to. You don't really NEED to.

Go back and read my posts. I'm talking about a work environment here. We are required to upgrade or lose support. Also we get it forced down our throat thanks to application developers who only develop Win based apps.

Go back and read my posts. Your business chooses to upgrade.

You could hire developers to write apps on any platform you wish. As I said earlier, it's economically advantageous for most companies to choose MS OSes and apps on them because it costs less than the alternatives.

 

[shiner]

Your business chooses to upgrade

No. We are forced to by MS if we want to maintain support. We are also forced into upgrading to maintain compatibility by the various software vendors. As for the apps....do you have any idea how many applications are run in a business the size of one I work in?

 

[yoda291]

I thought win98 was a good thing, cuz even tho it was very similar to 95, it was a good sight better in stability and usability.

I thought win98se was very good, it's what win98 shoulda been in the first place. It's fast and works well with other software...relatively speaking.

I thought nt4 was very good ... it worked better than nt 3.51 and really did help productivity. plus, nt4 server is still a good os.

I thought the entire 2000 series of 0Ses (2k, 2k server, 2k adv server, 2k dc server...) was a godsend. It really did become a very powerful and mature OS and it's what I run on ALL my windows boxes.

I refuse to acknowledge the existence of ME and I dislike xp.
Why? ME isn't an OS. XP is pretty much 2k with a pretty shell and a few tweaks added that are mostly available for 2k for free. While I was evaluating it, I couldn't do anything that 2k didn't let me do. Indeed, with the graphics sucking up cpu cycles on the low end test system, it became tedious working. My colleagues all raved about it, how you could install updates in one go, driver rollback, compatibility mode, remote control option, built in firewall, built in cd authoring. Over time, though, I made them realize that these weren't things that hadn't already been done and done better. I assume most 2k people have heard of the godsend that is Qchain. Driver rollback is little more than an excuse not to backup your system regularly. Compatibility mode seems to me as nothing more than a pretty interface to APCOMPAT. Remote control isn't any easier than vnc. The XP firewall doesn't hold a candle to iptables or zonealarm, though it is good for the home user, and I have yet to buy a burner that didn't have nero or ezcd bundled. In short, it doesn't let me get more work done...It doesn't add to my fps rating in cs or jk2. I don't feel that xp is justified in it's pricing schema. Indeed, when I first saw it, it looked more like a toy that you'd buy a toddler than a real OS. While I feel that my presumption is inaccurate as there are places where people do get as much if not more work done as people on 2k, I don't feel completely unjustified in my assumption. It's geared for the home user who doesn't really know what they're doing and don't have the time or want to take the time to learn the OS. This is why I don't run the OS and don't particularly agree with Microsoft's latest brain child's pricing schema and believe it should be an addon pack at best to 2k, like plus! was to 98.

As far as the security issue is concerned, I feel this is the best that can be done. I think I read somewhere that it was entirely possible to lock down the OS to ensure it was secure, but then no one would want to buy it. It'd be too restrictive. Heck, people clamored over XP's activation. I shudder to think what would happen if MS took even more measures. It'd be as if you were forced to log in to your machines as a user....not power user, not admin, not GID 0, just a user. You'd not have the rights to blow up the system, but do you really want to do that ALL the time? So I think that sp1 is a good idea as is and that MS should keep trying to find consumer friendly ways of combating piracy.

 

[HendrixFan]

If you think that the price of Windows is "cheap", compared to what the market would bear if their was real competition, you are crazy. Ive already pulled a quote from the findings of fact showing that Microsoft is able to charge twice the "profitable" price for their product. Its clear from reading the entire document that Microsoft is gouging the market. To claim otherwise simply is not true. Considering the huge code base that already exists in the NT enviroment, even though fixed costs of producing software is high, the marginal costs are very low. Of course that helps to create a barrier to entry, but it also means that given the monopoly share, Microsoft can ecnomically afford to lower their costs drastically.

To give you an idea of the kind of money Microsoft has made in their monopoly marketplace, they have more physical cash on hand than the big three auto makers COMBINED!

Here is some more good stuff from the Findings of Fact:

"The company's decision not to consider the prices of other vendors' Intel-compatible PC operating systems when setting the price of Windows 98, for example, is probative of monopoly power. One would expect a firm in a competitive market to pay much closer attention to the prices charged by other firms in the market. Another indication of monopoly power is the fact that Microsoft raised the price that it charged OEMs for Windows 95, with trivial exceptions, to the same level as the price it charged for Windows 98 just prior to releasing the newer product. In a competitive market, one would expect the price of an older operating system to stay the same or decrease upon the release of a newer, more attractive version. Microsoft, however, was only concerned with inducing OEMs to ship Windows 98 in favor of the older version. "

"Furthermore, Microsoft expends a significant portion of its monopoly power, which could otherwise be spent maximizing price, on imposing burdensome restrictions on its customers ? and in inducing them to behave in ways ? that augment and prolong that monopoly power. For example, Microsoft attaches to a Windows license conditions that restrict the ability of OEMs to promote software that Microsoft believes could weaken the applications barrier to entry. "

 

[jhu]

The things that XP lets me do! Two hundred bucks is a BARGAIN for this software!

wow, you'll really love linux.

 

[DigDug]

Good stuff, Hendricks. We have a lot of textualists here, whittling down the etymology of 'monopoly'. It's hilarious the lengths people will go to conform to doctrines that the movers and deciders of this nation don't fully believe in. Most of these die-hards should go to school - the black-and-white, yes-no binary they live through will wash down the toilet.

 

[SagaLore]

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.....

A business can set whatever price they want. If it's too much for you, don't buy it. The reason that Microsoft monopolizes the computer industry is because people who couldn't afford it, borrowed it or pirated it - then everybody is using it and that becomes the standard. So basically it's the bootlegger's fault we're stuck with MS...

 

[DigDug]

SagaLore, you're a genius! It's the bootlegger's fault!

 

[mithrandir2001]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Then stick with an older version of Windows like Windows 2000.

That is what is on our desktops and servers now. Why? Mostly because MS forced the upgrade. Don't kid yourself. Support for NT4 will be going bye bye very soon.

Do you HAVE to use Windows XP Pro? No. Do you HAVE to use Windows 2000 Pro? No. Do you HAVE to use Office XP/2000?? No.

We still do work for businesses that run DOS machines, companies that still use TONS of Windows 95 machines with Office95/97.

no one has to use telephones and yet that industry was first heavily regulated then the monopoly was broken up. and its still heavily regulated.

Crap. Bell was a government mandated and protected monopoly. MS is neither.

PC OS's should be recognized as a natural monopoly and thus subject to all the regulation and oversight that any of them, utilities or whoever, are due.

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

The individual does not have a choice of electric/cable/phone, but they DO have a choice of OS. To claim otherwise is just crap.

to claim that MS is not a monopoly in desktop operating systems is to ignore reality (aka, crap, in your word). sure, there are alternatives, but the fact that MS can extract a different price from different consumers for the same product defines them as a monopoly. due to some gov't intervention they're no longer legally allowed to do that.

They can sell their product for whatever prices they want. The fact the viable alternatives exist prove they are not a "monopoly."

If a consumer is not happy with MS's products, or pricing, they CAN use an alternative that CAN do the job.

What is at play here is that people like you want to punish MS for being the most popular. You can't control the consumer, so you want to regulate the business.

"a situation where a market is dominated by a single seller of a product is known simply as a monopoly"
-- hal r varian's intermediate microeconomics: a modern approach fifth ed, pg 12.

Main Entry: mo·nop·o·ly
Pronunciation: m&-'nä-p(&-)lE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -lies
Etymology: Latin monopolium, from Greek monopOlion, from mon- + pOlein to sell
Date: 1534
1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
2 : exclusive possession or control
3 : a commodity controlled by one party
4 : one that has a monopoly

MS does not have an exculsive ownership or control of the OS market. Other viable OSes exist.

Nearly every market has a dominant company. Dominanting a market does not mean one has exculsive control.

Now, you can try to redifine the word "monopoly" all you want, or do so by proxy... it wont change a thing. MS does NOT have exclusive control of the OS market.

what a bunch of english majors think a monopoly is vs what an economist defines a monopoly as... guess who i grant higher authority to.

The root of the word "monopoly" is mono which means ONE. There is more than one OS available. That some economist chooses to redefine the word to fit his agenda is irrelevant. The fact remains that MS cannot be a monoploy so long as other viable OSes exist.

again, etymology vs an accepted economics definition.

Duuude! These designs are just totally blowing my mind.

 

[Draknor]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

A business can set whatever price they want.

Only with the following stipulation: that economic success is not a goal. If a business wants to be successful, it cannot arbitrarily set prices - it must set prices based upon supply and demand. Demand in an open market is heavily influenced by competition. Why doesn't nVidia charge $1000 per GPU? Because then no one would buy nVidia chips when ATI makes similar performing chips for $200 (or whatever the VPU costs).

Microsoft, as has been stated, is a monopoly. You want more proof? Here's the legal definition of a monopoly:

U.S. law generally views monopolies as harmful because they obstruct the channels of free competition that determine the price and quality of products and services offered to the public. The owners of a monopoly have the power, as a group, to set prices, exclude competitors, and control the market in the relevant geographic area. U.S. antitrust laws prohibit monopolies and any other practices that unduly restrain competitive trade.

Microsoft has been shown to do this. Why? Because they can set prices & exclude competitors due to their licensing. You can not buy a consumer PC without Windows on it. That's pretty exclusive, if you ask me. You say that's the OEMs choice? Fine - but it's a choice heavily influenced by Microsoft's licensing terms, meaning Microsoft is controlling the market = monopoly.

I think the point is that consumers & businesses are tired of Microsoft's monopolistic pricing & market control. If Dell & Gateway offered nice consumer PCs with Linux and Microsoft still wants to charge $100+ for Windows, then fine - now I, Joe No-PC-Guru Doe, have a choice. For businesses - the story's a little different, since many custom apps are built exclusively for Windows. If there are no Linux versions, then those businesses would have to pay the premium to use that software. But if Linux were more available in consumer & corporate PCs, then I'd bet it wouldn't be long before a) those companies start offering linux versions, or b) Another company moves in and offers a linux alternative.

The reason that Microsoft monopolizes the computer industry is because people who couldn't afford it, borrowed it or pirated it - then everybody is using it and that becomes the standard. So basically it's the bootlegger's fault we're stuck with MS...

I don't agree - I think the monopoly is because Microsoft FORCED OEMs to buy licenses for Microsoft software (link):

First, Microsoft forced computer manufacturers (OEMs) to enter into long-term anticompetitive "per processor" licensing contracts for MS-DOS and Windows, which required OEMs to pay Microsoft a royalty for each computer sold even if they installed a competing operating system on some of their computers.

 

[TheCoop]

I own a new version of Windows XP Pro, I had a fried who is a student buy it for me from his college, I think it was $30 or some rediculously low price. There are alternatives to pirated software. I was using DevilsOwn version of XP, I considered it a try before you buy (you can call it whatever you like), after I was satisfield that I liked it and it would do what I wanted it to do, I bought a legit copy and upgraded the one I had installed and everything is running beautiflly with SP1 in it. Yes here were major flaws in the beginning cause many companies did not have drivers for it, now those are fixed.