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."

Comments

There has to be an alternative motive here...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

The picked the win-win situation

[zaunuz]

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.

Wrong Way Round

[CowboyBob500]

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

Re:Ah, Microsoft the benefactor.

[Pidder]

Of course, were they to deny access to SP2 to those with copyright infringing copies, those using them might migrate to OSS. Or Microsoft might even be sued for having allowed infected machines to exist, when they had the means to patch them.

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.

It's not nice, it's good business

[bcore]

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.

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.. :)) that windows is insecure.

Oh that is easy

[SmallFurryCreature]

There are two explanations.

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?

Re:Keep an Eye on SP2

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Re:In other related news,

[TheRoachMan]

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 )

Re:Then why the need for XP activation?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I'll come right out and say it

[fermion]

The problem with /. is that there are few posters with a long term view of the computing industry. Although 1998 seems a long time ago, in a certain sense it is not, and another certain sense it is.

First, MS cannot be compared to Linux. The former is a very mature product, the later is very immature. Linux gets the same pass we gave to Windows up to about NT. Windows was maturing from a single machine/single person/single node toy to a hybrid OS. Linux is maturing from multiuser multiperson/networked machine to a hybrid OS. Linux may never be simple enough for the average user, and Windows may never be reliable enough for high performance applications.

MS had no problems until they wanted to do everything. The groupthink MS created over the past 5 to 10 years is that your business is best run using a single OS, and it is even better if you use the same OS as everyone else. This is a far cry than the late 70's/early 80's when they were crying not to trust the single vendor IBM, or in the mid 80's when they were crying no to trust Apple.

Over the years they have gotten themselves into more trouble. Hacking on a GUI on top of a function command line was done quickly and without enough understandings of the difficulties. The problems and ridicule were absolutely deserved given the demonstrated state of the art. Likewise hacking on a network protocol, with the additional disks, additional hours, and additional support, was a joke compared to the plug and play capabilities of AppleTalk and the much more advanced feature of Novell.

And I always find it ridiculous when I hear complaints about the drivers. It took me half an hour at the command line to get a zip drive to work in 1994 on a PC. The Mac was plug and Play. Installing a printer driver required acquiring the printer driver and several reboots, not to mention a clunky choosing of the printer. On the Mac at the same time may popular printers were almost plug and play. Of course by them manufacturers had fallen for the myth of the 'simplicity' of the PC, and so often did not include serial ports for the Mac.

So, many posts you read are also from people who have seen Windows develop from the day MS released that they had missed the boat. They worked on original Unix machines, even microcomputers, that in some ways were better than anything we have today. The hope is that we will get back to the time when computers worked, when we weren't forced to run services we did not need. There is a place for Windows. There would be more of a place if it were customizable.

In short, if the issues were just results Windows would be a non-starter. However, since cheapness, groupthink myths, and communicating to the PHB plays a big part, it is now what we are stuck with.