Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Allows Pirates to Install XP SP2
mkraft writes "On the tail of the previously asked question on whether Microsoft should support pirated copies of XP, comes the answer.
According to Computer Times, Microsoft will allow SP2 to be installed on any copy of Windows XP including copies with invalid license keys.
Microsoft decided "that even if someone has pirated copy of Windows, it is more important to keep him safe than it is to be concerned about the revenue issue."
There is no news of whether or not pirated copies will be allowed access to the Windows Update site afterwards or just allowed to install SP2."
I had to use a pirated version of windows on my vmware because my damn laptop came with a version of XP that could only be installed on a SONY, laptop. Which is crap - I was forced to pay for XP with my laptop - it should be mine to run on:
1. Another computer should I not use it on my laptop.
2. My vmware virtual machine on the laptop it was meant to run on, although not in the manner originally intended.
Well, allowing everyone to install SP2 would make worms and viruses that spreads due to OS voulnerabilities to be slowed down. And i doubt MS would sell more Windows if it wasnt possible to install SP2 on pirated windows-versions.
this is probably the most boring sig in the world
I think what they meant to say is that they realized it's more important to keep OTHER Windows users safe. By allowing users of invalid copies of XP to patch, known vulnerabilities that might be exploited and used as points of attack against other Windows installations are addressed. It simply makes sense for them to do this.
"that even if someone has pirated copy of Windows, it is more important to keep our future revenues safe than to worry about coypright infringment."
You're reading Slashdot. Of course you like Linux and pc hardware
Microsoft decided "that even if someone has pirated copy of Windows, it is more important to keep him safe than it is to be concerned about the revenue issue."
What they mean is "it is more important to keep us safe from the media when the next round of viruses hit any unpatched machines by saying we allowed anyone to install SP2"
Bob
Listen to my latest album here
I don't know what you are smoking but dude, not being able to patch their system will not make them migrate. People don't care about patching their systems as it is. Look at Sasser, a patch was out but people didn't bother downloading it. The only thing that will make people migrate to OSS is if it was ABSOLUTELY impossible to use a pirated version of Windows.
Bullshit, they'd never ever get (successfully) sued. They have no obligation whatsoever to provide a pirate with updates to the pirated software.
I'd say that this is just good business for them.. Making sure that people who probably wouldn't pay for an OS anyways aren't helping to spread worms and infecting people who DO pay for the OS is just going to help MS.
:)) that windows is insecure.
On the other hand, denying people service packs is not likely to induce them to pay for a license (it certainly wouldn't have convinced me, back when I ran windows), and just contributes to the perception (if you want to call it that..
And if this is the case (which I highly doubt), where is the problem? I don't feel bad for people who pirate software and then complain when they get caught. If I steal a car and then there is a recall on it, should I be able to take my car in and get it fixed without anyone saying anything about it being stolen? The problem is that people are stealing MS software (and yes, taking something you have no rights to is stealing, whether it's software or hardware). MS isn't to blame for not supporting these people, they are to blame for stealing the software.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
It has nothing to do with being selfless. If they COULD block access, then they would.
The problems with restricting access to this SP2 are totally different to restricting SP1.
At the SP1 stage, everyone with pirated version was using the devilsown serial key - one single key for every pirate.
This key was in use by 1 corporation, and it was fairly simple for microsoft to contact that one corporation, and talk them through changing their key.
Now that everyone knows the key is locked, they all use the newer keygenerators and produce random keys.
Microsoft can no longer determine the legit customers from the pirates.
It would cost them serious money if legit customers were blocked from updating.
liqbase
Well thanks to Microsoft's Product Activation, there is no such thing as a pirated copy of Windows XP, right? Oh, there is? And its easy to get around? Well thanks for wasting all the legit users fscking time, Microsoft!
Microsoft doesn't actually have anything to loose by giving this patch to pirates of its operating system. For one thing, if they had less pirates they would loose valuable market share (their greatest asset). The number of pirates who would actually buy a copy of Windows to get SP2 is negligable, so it's not like they're giving up some big potential revenue stream. Factor in the reduction in bad press that MS gets every time there's a worm and Microsoft's continued policy of supporting pirated copies of Windows makes all the sense in the world. They'd have to be stupid to do otherwise.
Of course the curtailing of various worms is nice for the Internet at large. Just because an action serves Microsoft's interest doesn't mean that it can't serve everyone else's interests too. (Except for the fact that it perpetuates Microsoft's choke-hold on the IT industry, but since when did we worry about the long-term good when a short-term good is in front of us?)
I'm sure that the extra bandwidth will cost Microsoft thousands of dollars, but it's cheap PR for them.
Maybe I'm not the target of this particular troll, since I don't believe that there's any "conspiracy". Microsoft is just doing what is best for Microsoft. That's what it always does (and should do - it is a business after all).
...and yet I can be sued when a burglar hurts himself on my property.
My server
This has happened to me three times. I do a lot of reinstalls on test systems at work. Each time I just called the phone number they provide and explained the situation and was provided an authentication key. Took 5 min tops.
As long as you are legit it isn't a problem. If you aren't legit, go cry me a river.
The first is simple. MS can't ban them. SP1 was easily installed when you had a keygen. So basically they are allowing something they can't stop anyway.
The second is more sinister. Has MS ever lost from piracy? Or has piracy helped them become the owner of the desktop. If everyone really had to pay for every bit of MS software they ran would they still be so widely used?
If they ever manage to create a windows you can't install without a license people might just choose not to use windows. It is a radical idea I know but MS can't risk it. They can afford piracy, they can't afford losing dominance on the desktop. Hell Gates himself has boasted that MS fortune is big enough to last them years without a single source of income.
Unix was once very popular because it was practially free to everyone working at a university. There were other OS'es to work with but unix was free for students, teachers, researchers and other people with no money. Same with the C programming language.
Dominance is worth a lot more then getting every user to pay. Just ask apple. Apple made sure you had to pay for their OS because you have to buy their hardware. How big is their share again?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Used some old Linux distribution maybe? Here everything works perfectly.
Dual Athlon 2000+: Works
Tyan Tiger MPX board: Works, random generator and network support included
Terratec DMX X-Fire 1024 sound card: works
GeForce FX 5600: Works
Logitech Cordless desktop mouse and keyboard: works
USB 2.0 card: works
USB hard disk: works
USB hub: works
CompactFlash card reader: works
MP3 player (Flash): works
HP LaserJet 1010: works
Aiptec tablet: works
My ancient laptop (Toshiba 470CDT) also works, power management and network included.
Linux was a pain to get to work in 1997. Now it works pretty well. I had more problems with Windows 2000 on the Athlon than with Linux.
Sued, yes, but not successfully. You can be sued for any insanity a person can invent, but it'll most probably get thrown out with a bill attached.
Next time you get one of those emails talking about all the crazy lawsuits our corrupt legal system permits, maybe you should google for the RESULTS of those lawsuits. You might be surprised.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
It's not malevolent but it is in their best interest.
When the next killer worm sweeps the world I doubt Microsoft will just be able to wave their hand and say, "it's all those illegal copies that are causing the problem" and have people believe it.
Bad PR is a big danger to Microsoft.
My company decided that windows 2000 was the last Microsoft operating system we would use unless Microsoft removed activation from its products. Sure, we use open-license corporate edition software, but the risk of being locked out of updates is too great to consider windows XP. Our machines will easily last us 3-4 years. If Microsoft still persists on using product activation at that time, we will probably move to Mac OS X (we'll need new hardware anyway) or Linux.
We are actively evaluating both products. In 3-4 years, those products will be even better than they are today. Microsoft needs to start realizing that they aren't the only game in town anylonger.
-ted
Actually, most of that 95% of users have a client support group that takes care of this sort of thing for them.
Plus, when this starts shipping with new computers, the FW should save a lot of headaches coming from home users on broadband connections.
So yeah, it won't be perfect. It's also okay to hate the company, or the products, but being a negative nancy isn't going to make the world a better place.
I think you'll find it's important from a security aspect only actually, as for a company that sells software with security holes in it, it's kinda important (and in their interests) to close them.
I've been beta testing it since inception and there isn't anything in there that remotely qualifies you to wield your FUD. If anything you should be taking your tin foil hat off and applauding them because, by releasing SP2 to people who didn't buy Windows, they've drastically reduced the potential number of zombie machines we'd all have to deal with. Goodness knows how you got a +5 interesting for 29 words with no basis...
Perhaps it's the users who should accept liability for not installing these patches?
Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
If I had any modpoints I'd mod you up, but I don't so I'll reward you for your insight with a reply. I hate it when people say they hate Microsoft. As you say, it's ok to hate the company but whining about it won't help. A few days ago, when the sasser worm news was on /. people were complaining that warezed versions of Windows XP are to blame, because they're the most likely to not have any security patches installed, and thus help spread the worm. Now Microsoft fixes this (4 days after it's been brought up on slashdot as an 'idea'!!), and people start cracking jokes and saying that it's useless etc etc. I just can't bend my head around this...(yeah I must be new here :p )
I'll say it, even at the risk of burning my karma.
Most (I said most--if it doesn't apply to you, disregard) of the posters here are high schoolers and college students who don't work and have absorbed into the hivemind groupthink that dictates that everything Microsoft does is silly and ridiculous, and everything OSS does is cool and cutting-edge. It's "hip" to your IRC buddies to hate Microsoft and use Mandrake. Then you can say, "Windows sucks because a buggy driver crashed it once...by the way, I'll be back in three hours while I set up my sound card in Linux."
VA Linux-owned Slashdot has a certain interest in posting as many negative Microsoft articles as possible, and seeing as how Taco's excuse for calling his "news" site a hobby is supposed to be an explanation for the outright falsehoods and propaganda that gets posted, it's a convenient way to discredit Microsoft no matter what they do.
Outside of Slashdot, the world is very different, but a lot of people have adopted a worldview that is based entirely on Slashdot headlines. Google Zeitgeist shows Linux at 1%, Windows is still around and Longhorn is definitely coming, but if you come to Slashdot, Linux is somehow taking over Mac usage and Longhorn is "vaporware" with no useful technologies whatsoever. Just one example of many (don't get me started on the pro-piracy bullshit...violating copyright holder rights is "justified," while violating the copyright of the GPL is "evil").
I've seen sigs that stated, "You use Linux if you're anti-Microsoft, you use BSD if you're pro-UNIX." It extends to this website, which is not pro-OSS or pro-Linux, but merely anti-"M$." We're still seeing Clippy and BSOD jokes in 2004. It's like this place is firmly stuck in 1998 and absolutely will not let go. Meanwhile, the late 90s free software golden child that Linux was to the press has subsided, and now people have moved on, expecting actual results and not just cute ideologies that look good in a Wired article. I merely bring all this up because I believe it has an effect on the attitudes of the Slashdot editors and most of Slashdot's devoted readers.
Less and less do I even bother reading the comments of stories anymore...I'm about ready to just skip them entirely. So much uninformed opinion, outright false memes that never stop spreading ("640K is enough for anybody" is just one example) and bullshit that I could start a manure farm...
Activation was to essentially add marginal revenue.
Think of it like this...
You're selling Windows, and you have a lot of money, so you do a lot of surveys about windows, and based on Windows Update, you have a pretty good idea how many unique PC's are out there versus how many licenses you sold.
Lets assume the piracy rate for Windows is 15% (I have no idea, just a guess). Now, Microsoft is already getting money for each PC, because Dell, Gateway, and all the others force you to buy Windows when you buy the PC. That means you can't gain market share simply by expanding your market, because you've got 100% of the market for all intents and purposes.
So you look at that piracy number. If you can decrease piracy 5%, you get 5% more revenue, essentially for free.
Oh sure, 10% will still bypass it, but what do you care? The 5% is easy, causes no inconvenience, and if you're selling Windows, you make it as liberal as possible. You're trying to scare Joe Mostly-Honest into doing the right thing.
Now, if your goal was to go from 10% piracy down to 1%, my guess is that you would piss off about 50% of your customers, because it would be such a pain the ass, no one would be happy.
So MS just got 5% more revenue simply by forcing the thing to phone home once. Big deal.