Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Changes Tune Again On SP2 Installs
KidHash writes "Following on from last months Slashdot story, it appears Microsoft has changed its tune with the BBC reporting that SP2 will not install on XP installations using the '20 most pirated product IDs.'"
What I see happening is that the 21-40 most-pirated codes rapidly displace the top-20 most-pirated codes, and everyone who cares about being up-to-date is happy with no benefit to MS. Instead, the chances they missed were:
All in all, I am somewhat surprised - an uncharacteristic faux pas.
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
Last month, I got hammered for taking a skeptical position about MS' attitude and motivations. What bothered me at the time was the disingenuous wording of their original announcement (not the act itself) wherein they professed concern only for the pirate users' safety.
The problem MS faces is that the reputation of their OS is gradually eroding with virus after virus and a lot of this comes from those rouge boxes that lack the securtiy patches. This puts MS in an interesting quandry: help theives or save the OS. Heh.
"...all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness..." yada yada
While it will generate bad press, and allow many unprotected PC's to propagate worms/viruses, it's their right to withhold updates.
Unless that is, a class action law suit forces them to be responsible for their mistakes, much as car dealers are now. True it's not actually a 'safety' issue, and you don't 'own' the software like you do a car, but now that the government believes the internet is 'needed and a national issue', who knows.
Personally I think they should offer it to everyone, they aren't going to loose any revenue over it. And it makes it look to the common man ( and the government ) that they care.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
If the pirates are trying to install SP2, then they already have Windows installed. That means MS has already got their marketshare boost, and need not worry about actually supporting the pirate.
After all, do you really think all those pirates are going to say, "Darn you, Microsoft!" and go install Gentoo?
I think not.
I am wondering how many 'regular users' go out and buy a copy of Windows at the store. They retail for about $250-300, and I never see a shelf with a slot missing. Every single user that I know that has windows, got it with their computer.
So how many *retail* copies of Windows does MS sell?
It's rare that I encounter a pirated copy of Windows anymore, except on home made PCs. The funny part is, those that pirate usually have the key written on the CD. In contrast, whenever I have to reinstall at a relatives with their legitimate copy, they never can find their key.
Microsoft should just go back to the C64 days of 'What is the third word of the fifth paragraph on the fifteenth page of your EULA?'
This is, of course, assuming any printed copy of the EULA would be kept by Joe User. Estimates vary.
-- I have fans? Wow.
*sarcasm*
Does Microsoft REALLY want to alienate the 1-2 million loyal customers who are using those 20 codes?
*/sarcasm*
It doesn't sound much different to me than charging higher insurance rates to people who have multiple traffic violations or at-fault accidents, and it apparently won't affect more than... maybe... 20 legitimate customers who can pick up the phone and call Microsoft if they need to update properly licensed installations.
The only thing I'd worry about is if SP2 breaks backwards compatibility, once again using their de-facto OS monopoly to force EVERYONE to upgrade, just because they want to hurt software pirates or sell their next generation OS. That would be unfortunate and annoying.
Are there any security patches in SP2 that will NOT be released separately? If so, I'd say this is one amazingly reckless move on Microsoft's part. In the end the legit users (even non-MS customers) will bear the brunt of Net attacks by compromised machines. After all, those "Top 20" licenses must account for a large number of machines, else why bother singling them out?
Let's face it, even WITH the release of security patches its damn hard to get John Q. Public to keep up to date.
Now if SP2 is only a "features and stability" release, more power to the software vendor, MS or not. (Wow, did I just conditionally support MS' position? I need a drink...)
Not really, there seems to be a schism within Microsoft with some feeling that cleaning up the Internet pollution caused by buggy Windows installations is good neighbourliness and also good PR and the others who want their dollars at all costs. The two parts have made conflicting announcements and it seems that now the money whores have won.
See my journal, I write things there
Well, I guess it's time for everyone to go copy the numbers off the stickers on the floor displays at Best Buy again.
When will Windows be ready for the desktop?
Second, there are millions of casual pirates who install Windows on more machines than they've licensed, or who "borrow" a copy from work. Many of these people just aren't ever going to buy the appropriate number of copies of the OS, especially at retail prices. However, they do benefit Microsoft by remaining in the Windows "ecosystem", increasing its value through the network effect. If they crack down on these people, many of them will go to the effort to learn Linux or some other solution, thereby increasing the influence of alternative ecosystems at the expense of Microsoft's influence. This increased familiarity of alternative solutions in the general public would lower the barriers for Microsoft's lucrative customers, like entire businesses, from dumping all of their Microsoft products and switching to alternatives.
Don't worry, the keygen is in the public domain.
What you do with it is your business.
I personally have 8 licenses of Windows XP and only 4 computers.
Why do I use a keygen? Mostly because I don't like activation.
Of course I also edited my license agreement to "I agree to use this software in any manner I see fit under existing copyright law" and had it signed with the same signatures that the original agreement had. Which would be none.
They hate OSS users more, because at least, the pirates could theorically be brought to justice and/or made to cough-up cash to Billy-Boy, whereas they just can't LEGALLY lay their hands on OSS users and squeeze cash out of them...
No, they hate OSS users more because they don't contribute to making Microsoft the standard. If every pirate switched to Linux, you wouldn't be able to use a word document and figure most of the people you talk to will be able to read it. Instead you'll have to use another, non-Microsoft file format. But if you do that, then there is less reason for you to be using Windows, so more people will be inclined to move over to other operating systems.
Pirates make Microsoft the standard among home users.