Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Replaces Your Pirated Windows, For Free
th3d0ct0r writes "ZDNet reports that Microsoft is now willing to replace your pirated version of Windows XP. As part of the recently started "Windows Genuine advantage" program, Alex Hilton explains that this incentive aims to bring out customers who bought PC's with Windows XP preinstalled from vendors that pirated the Microsoft OS. Not only do they offer amnesty to anyone coming forth with a pirated version, but also to ship an original version of their product with a valid license to replace the pirated one, each customer being able to get up to 5 such replacements. Hilton says: "Our goal is not to prosecute the individual, our goal is to get to the source".
Nope, this is not a PR move.. this is an attempt to find people who SELL pirated software
You still have to shop the guys who you bought your unlicensed copy of the OS from. And that includes signing a sworn statement to the fact.
So, in essence, Microsoft gives you a legitimate copy of the software (or at least a license for the software that you already have installed) and you give Microsoft a mid-sized piracy outfit on a silver platter.
Total cost to Microsoft for eliminating a pirate that might be costing them tens, if not hundreds, of thousands: next to nothing. The pirate outfit will probably end up forking over the lost income one way or another (in court or out of court, whichever Microsoft decides) and even it it doesn't (because it declares bankrupcy or something similar) it'll never be selling another pirated copy of Windows XP again, which means more legitimate Windows XP sales for Microsoft in the long run.
You have to admit, it's one helluva smart play by Microsoft. It gets to make more money and it gets to look like the good guy too.
Oh, and why not totally free? Well, apart from the legal stuff that you have to sign, there's a good chance that any outfit that's pirating Windows XP on a large scale barely has its head above water. The cost of getting caught by Microsoft, or even the cost of going legitimate from there onwards, is likely to drag such a company down like a stone. If that happens, your PC's warranty won't be worth the paper that it's written on.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Hmm... there is about nothing in this post I agree with. First off, patches are easy as pie to get for Microsoft products once they release them. They have some pretty damn fast servers waiting to upload all the patches they've ever released. Second, backwards (reverse?) compatibility is also impressive. You can run many many old programs on new Windowses and often vice versa. Microsoft has WAY better backwards compatibility than Linux, as things often get rearranged and rethought in Linux. The problems with MS are vendor lock-in, security holes, instability. (stability being more of a problem with Microsoft Playstation OSes of 95,98,Me) To be honest, I think backwards compatibility holds Windows back... you get tons of remnant erroneous junk from old Windowses that piles up in the garbage heap that is Microsoft Windows code. Example: The Windows Registry... big disaster, but we still have it around. Why? The registry is a pathetic unmaintained cob-web-full configuration system with information about programs you thought you'd eradicated years ago. *shudders*. It is the single biggest cause of the common view of Windowsites that Windows should be reinstalled annually. And finally, the quantity of bugs in code is irrelevant to how many people use it. More people means more get exposed, and it also means that people will try to exploit flaws in the code, but having many users doesn't automatically make you a sloppy coder. Ever wonder why Microsoft releases service packs? I figure that once they think they've squashed a good number of bugs, they need to rewrite some things in order to introduce new ones. They rewrite a bunch of now-working code in order to create new bugs just waiting to be exposed. SPs are the means to hide these among innocent security fixes and other additions. So yes, this brings me to that I do sort-of agree with your last point. They really do want you to upgrade to their latest incarnation of Windows.
Microsoft then checks your version to see if it really is genuine. If it isn't, they assume you are innocent (since you have receipt to demonstrate that you bought it believing it was the real deal). Then, they go after the company that sold you the pirate version.
So it's not a trick, it's not about converting pirates, and it's not a PR move. If you pirated your copy deliberately, then you won't be able to get a legal copy for free without getting in trouble. If you believe you have a legal copy but want to check, this is a way to do so for free.
I'm a member of the popular Microsoft hating slashdot group, but this is not what you suggest - not as far as I understand it.
I'd hate to see karma whoring evolve to people restating a few lines from the article.
But see, we don't read the article. So summaries from readers who KNOW WHAT WE WANT TO KNOW make for awesome comments....
This has been well documented. Basically, its the best of both worlds for Microsoft because the illegal copies are not counting towards Microsoft's sales (and therefore not helping antitrust prosecutions), the governments and large businesses were the majority of desktop PCs are (who have to obey the law and can afford the ludicrous per-seat prices of MSW) have to buy MSW because it is ubiqitous as everyone else uses (illegal copies of) MSW. If MS inflates the prices of MSW enough (as they have) they will get illegal copying but that just encourages the ubiquity of MSW, but they will be more than payed back by the sales to the few who own the majority of PCs, need to stay within the law and will pay any ludicrious price.
Also, as Bill Gates stated in a frank moment, Microsoft want to introduce pirated copies of MSW "like a drug" into less-econmically developed countries in order to "get them hooked on" and lock them in to MSW and remove usage of free software in these countries.
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
In all my born days I have seen about a dozen legit copies of any version of Windows {including 3.11 on a stack of floppies} -- including about six at my workplace. Everyone else I know has an operating system they didn't pay for: either a dodgy copy of Windows, or Linux.
.sxw and .sxc files, would be a little baffled at first; but soon come to realise that they are OpenOffice files. Then they would install OpenOffice -- and maybe notice that instead of dire warnings against copying, comes a notice encouraging you to copy and spread their software!
This is how it works in the UK. If you go to a back-street computer shop -- not PriCey World, not Dixons, but an actual independent retailer, a 21st century artisan -- to buy a machine, you get told the cost of the hardware not including software. Not even Windows. You are then given a choice: either you can take the machine away like that and install your own software, or you can pay for a legitimate copy of Windows and Office and all the usual crap like Outlook Express and Internet Exploder.
At this point the customer probably is going to be shocked by how much the software will cost; and unless they are particularly straight-arsed about such matters, will inquire discreetly about a cheaper way. The shopkeeper's younger assistant will offer to do the job, strictly on the quiet and subject to the customer never breathing a word. The receipt says "No Operating System" and the cost of the software is paid, in cash, straight into the assistant's sky rocket. Lovely!
The customer leaves, thinking they got one up on Microsoft by ripping off "hundreds of pounds" of software. Hey, it feels so good, stickin' it to The Man! And Ballmer cackles, because he knows the customer still believes they need Microsoft. Truth is, it's The Man who stuck it to you. Just because you didn't pay for it, doesn't make it less buggy or crash-prone. You still haven't got the source code -- and having a competent programmer look at the source code is the only way ever to make it less buggy and crash-prone. You still get every disadvantage you would have got if you had paid full whack for a legit copy, on top of the twin disadvantages that it's illegal and you know full well.
In a more sorted universe, the shopkeeper would of course say, "Sure! You could have Linux and OpenOffice instead, for nothing." The customer would spend a day or two getting used to it and then realise they didn't need Microsoft. The customer's friends, being emailed loads of
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!